Understand My Job, Please! (ESR explains) 194
Jamie writes "ESR tries to clear things up, and suggests a few things for the hacker culture's future.
Read it from the mouth of the man. " This puts things more into perspective-and it's good to see things have simmered down a little bit.
When he's right, he's right. (Score:1)
Sorry if this makes no sense, it's late at night and I'm tired.
Open vs. Closed (Score:1)
From all that I have read, he didnt do this, it was announced publicly 'yea verily this is Open Source' and that was that. BP and RMS didnt agree and they said so.
Nice article - why the AC? (Score:1)
--
RMS is talking about the same thing. (Score:1)
--
The community needs a voice. (Score:2)
Well, flaming and taking shots at each other certainly seems to be a part of the culture here. Most "nerds" I know can't abide cluelessness, and there's something to be said for that.
But the Linux/Open Source community needs someone like ESR to deal with folks like myself -- the mainstream press. The community needs people to take all of these wonderful ideas, translate them into English, and communicate them in such a way as to get everyday, mom-and-pop people excited about them. ESR did a pretty good job of that. His ABCNEWS.com chat was widely visited, and the transcript has been accessed over and over.
I don't think the Linux/Open Source community needs leaders, per se. It's a democracy of the masses, and for the most part, and for reasons still quite unknown, it WORKS. But you do need folks to translate for you. I'm not the most clueful press person on the planet, but I can tell a flame from constructive criticism. Not every reporter can do that, however. That's why you need folks like ESR.
And he's also right about one other thing -- there are certainly folks who could stand to lose the flame-throwers every now and then.
Stereotypes, Marytrdom and Growing Up. (Score:5)
Mr. Raymond, the last of the pimples left my face many years ago. I work for a living, doing systems programming in the corporate world. And I take exception to being stereotyped into the "pimply-faced geek" group simply because I think you've gotten a little too carried away with yourself. Not all of us are "testosterone-poisoned twerps", contrary to your assertions.
The aspect of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" that I enjoyed so much was it's substance and lack of rhetoric. It wasn't propaganda, it seemed, until Netscape got hold of it and suddenly "Open Source" was the politically correct terminology for free software. As a programmer, I'm a very pragmatic person; rhetoric is lost on me and in fact, tends to lead me to believe that it's being used to hide something. It bothers me that you use language in such a way as to produce the impression that anyone who disagrees with you, and says so publicly, is an enemy of the Linux community.
*That*, sir, is why folks accuse you of egotism.
Your appeal to this community consisted of the fact that you were the voice of reason, that you were willing to negotiate and discuss and bring this community together. Many of us saw you as the primary spokesman for those of us who wanted to see a healthy free software community; even through your missteps over the last few months, many of us continued to believe.
Even, God help us, through the APSL debacle.
Many of us had problems - major problems - with the APSL, but for the most part we didn't blame Apple. Apple has the right to do their licensing any way they want, so long as it's legal. We didn't really have a problem with OSI backing the APSL. That's OSI's call.
But when you write something like "Take My Job, Please" - in which you stereotype vast tracts of the community, wrap yourself in your own marytrdom and play the "I'm the leader, why is no one following?" game, something is wrong. When the press carries your "retirement" by stating that the Linux leader is stepping down, something is *very* wrong. And when you publicly state that public discussion on these subjects is a liability to the success of the Linux Cause, it's time to stop things and start over.
You're not the Fearless Leader, Mr. Raymond. The future of free software does not hinge on what you say and do, and if the only way to "win" is to fall in line (or "grow up" as you put it) and goosestep behind you, then let's all please declare defeat, go home and get on with our lives.
Please?
Rob Warren
aleris@iag.net
Open vs. Closed (Score:1)
Bruce et al, and RMS didn't do that. Makes me wonder which of the three predicates fails.
-russ
Open vs. Closed (Score:1)
Bruce et al, and RMS didn't do that. Makes me wonder which of the three predicates fails.
-russ
Two things. First, ESR should have gone to them before he started a media hoopla over it. Once it was out, they felt they needed to tell the world that the APSL wasn't free. Second, ESR does have a history of ignoring them. That's why Bruce Perens quit the OSI.
You can do better than that (Score:2)
Because it is your job to tell him what you think. He's not a pollster or an elected representative any more than he's a boss or leader. He's an opinionated man who gets listened to by the media. If you want him to speak for you, you'd better bother to convince him of what you think.
Given what he said in this article about the APSL debate, it seems to me that he'd prefer that if you have a problem with what he's said or done, that you do the simple and easy thing of emailing him, rather than posting "ESR Betrays Free Source; Film At 11!" to Slashdot. This is hardly an unreasonable request.
This isn't a matter of censorship or of ESR refusing to respond to public critiques -- as should be obvious, he does respond to public critiques. It's a matter of politeness. If someone says something mistaken or stupid in public, it might just be better to ask him/her in private "Did you really mean that? Did you consider the following implications?" rather than denouncing him/her publicly. This gives him/her the chance to amend his/her previous statements without losing face, as well as maintaining a level of civility.
I for one think that ESR should make it clear when he speaks to the media that he does not speak for all FS/OSS authors or users. I don't think he thinks he does, but it's obvious that the media would rather think of Open Source as a single, monolithic organization (like Microsoft) with a single leader and viewpoint. The media are not used to reporting on a movement that can't give press releases, so they interpret an OSI or ESR or Red Hat or BP press release as being a speech on behalf of all users.
In a certain sense, we are neither a "community" nor a "movement" in the classical senses of the word. We have no government, no Party Central Committee, no platform. We aren't like the SDS of the '60s, college students staying up late nights drafting manifestos; when we stay up late, we're writing code, configuring kernels, or just using the software. What we have in common is the code and really not much else. And this is a good thing; the more we recognize this, the more time we will spend making the code better instead of harping on political nonsense.
Re: Open vs. Closed (Score:1)
The "good way" you're looking for would have been to send mail to board@opensource.org. You got a problem with what we do? Tell us.
-russ
He must ask "What do you think?" BEFORE publishing (Score:2)
[Quoting the previous poster]
"Why doesn't ESR ask 'What do you people think?'"
"Because it is your job to tell him what you think."
Uuhh... How can we, if we don't know *what* he'll release an opinion about until he *has* already made it public? Should everybody constantly bombard him with all their thoughts on the philosophy of free software / open source, licensing issues, and everything else, on the off chance that the precise thing they're thinking about *might* be the subject of tomorrow's "Open Source Community"-stamped press release by ESR?
"He's not a pollster or an elected representative any more than he's a boss or leader. He's an opinionated man who gets listened to by the media. If you want him to speak for you, you'd better bother to convince him of what you think."
But then, unless you want thousands of people to flood him with e-mail on everything between heaven and earth -- how the heck would he have time to even *read* it all, let alone to do anything else? -- for that to work, for people to be *able* to "convince him of what you think", *he* would first have to announce his *intentions*. By posting on a newsgroup, here on Slashdot, or on some mailing list, something like "Hey guys, I'm thinking about announcing this and that -- what does everybody think? Mail me at..." Does he do that? Not that I know of; and if he does, apparently he doesn't do it in the right places.
"Given what he said in this article about the APSL debate, it seems to me that he'd prefer that if you have a problem with what he's said or done, that you do the simple and easy thing of emailing him, rather than posting 'ESR Betrays Free Source; Film At 11!' to Slashdot. This is hardly an unreasonable request."
Yes, it is.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't follow *all* the news in the free software world, so I might have missed it -- but wasn't the first thing *anybody* (other than Apple and ESR) heard about the APSL, the public announcement that "the Open Source community" had endorsed it? It sure was the first mention of the whole idea that *I* saw.
P/A/J and RMS had to announce their concerns over the APSL *after* the fact, after ESR had told the world that "the Open Source community" had accepted Apple calling it "Open Source". I'm sure if ESR had posted a "Guys, I've been approached by Apple with this suggested license
This mess, and others like it, is wholly ESR's fault -- for facing the community he claims to "represent" with the fait accompli of his own unilateral actions time after time. What way is that of "representing" anything?!?
"This isn't a matter of censorship or of ESR refusing to respond to public critiques -- as should be obvious, he does respond to public critiques. It's a matter of politeness. If someone says something mistaken or stupid in public, it might just be better to ask him/her in private 'Did you really mean that? Did you consider the following implications?' rather than denouncing him/her publicly. This gives him/her the chance to amend his/her previous statements without losing face, as well as maintaining a level of civility."
Then those previous statements shouldn't have been *made* public under the label of representing something we don't yet know for sure that they represent -- i.e, the considered opinion of "the Open Source community" -- should they? For behaviour like that, a "representative" *deserves* to lose face, IMO. As an "ambassador", it's part of his job to make sure the community gets a chance to ask "Do we really want to do that? Have we considered the following implications?" BEFORE something is made public "on behalf" of those he claims to represent.
Christian R. Conrad
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Science. (Score:1)
When I do science that sucks, I get told about it. When I'm wrong, people flame me in journals or at meetings. It is my standing in the community that is affected. If I contribute insightful things to the scientific community, I am respected and revered. If not, I'm flamed and forgotten. You pour the acid of doubt on everything. That which is left, must be good.
The hacker culture is really the same. If your code sucks, you're forgotten. Your work must be held to the light of your community. Everyone can tell you what they think, and you must learn what to believe and what not to believe. That's one of the reasons I like Linux etc. It evolves like scientific thought.
The problem I see in the hacker community is that people who don't know what they are talking about are listened to too much. If I listened to what some ignorant people said about my science, I'd never get any of it done and I'd be fraught with lack of confidence about things I know are correct, much the same way that ESR feels now. You have to be selective to who you listen to.
May I make a suggestion to
Then, ESR, go read _that_. If you get flamed there, you deserve it, and you should examine your views and your actions, just like when I have to when other scientists call in to question my research. Then we can read
Just my $.02.
Imagine, civility makes things run smoothly... (Score:1)
The word 'civility' is an important one, and I'm glad to see it arise in this discussion thread. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the primary definition of its adjective form:
Of course civility makes things run more smoothly-- humanity discovered that thousands of years ago. The open question for us to debate is "is our culture broken?"
Is the fractious, heated cacophany of voices you're seeing in discussion forums like this one a sign of strength in cultural diversity, or is it an indication of weakness related to division and prejudice? Does this question sound like I'm talking about just us hackers, or am I really asking about the larger society? (Answer: just us hackers, for now...)
I have an opinion. Here it is. We're not really any more or less broken than that other culture-- you know, the one that is represented by folks like the Software Publishers Association-- but we're in a much better position to make self-appraisals and work for change within. This is our strength.
ESR, while perhaps not providing the best example in making his point, is right to bring this to our attention at this juncture: our biggest weakness is that our system of civil discourse is a little primitive.
I'll trot out my favorite example to make my case. Compare the level of civility you see in the IETF working group discussions with the levels you see in the discussions we've been seeing in public about open source licensing issues. Big difference. There shouldn't be.
You can do better than that (Score:1)
-David Utidjian-
utidjian@remarque.org
Watch out (Score:2)
I truly am worried, however, that esr feels that "blowing it" constitutes Free Software in general and Linux specifically not getting into the mainstream, PHB mentality. I'm sure that the majority of people don't care if Free Software (Linux) is used or believed in by PHBs. Does the fact that you haven't seen a car accident make it any less true?
I agree with you that it does no good to a revolution if everyone gets fed up. There are differences, but the reason anything ever gets done anywhere is that people get over them. Thus far, the Free Software community has done a pretty good job. Why would it fail now?
Can't we all just get along? (Score:2)
I think it was good of Eric to follow up to the community after his statement about potential retirement. However, I would have to suggest that, in keeping with his theme of everyone acting mature and being more together on things, that he try to do the same. I was starting to feel warm and fuzzy, until he stuck in some obvious side remarks about Bruce Perens, and his expression of feelings towards script-kiddies were just as qualified to be flames as much as any response from slashdot.
By the end, though, he did come back with a lot of good things to say about issues that really matter. He really is a great writer.
He still doesn't get it (Score:5)
A couple of thoughts come to mind after reading Raymond's latest reply:
In summary: Eric, look to how you might change your own behavior before lecturing the rest of the communinity on theirs.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
The phrase "slashdot kiddies" (Score:1)
Many people are taking the phrase "Slashdot
kiddies and their spiritual kin" to mean
that *all* people on Slashdot are kids
who don't deserve to be taken seriously.
It's an obvious variation of the phrase
"script kiddies". Does using that phrase imply
that anyone who uses a script is a kid?
(Yes, ESR is a good writer. Would that we
were all good readers.)
hear hear (Score:1)
Well said, sir! (Score:1)
--
Understand the community, please. (Score:2)
But I think ESR misses several points.
1) The article focuses in part on OSI's negotiations with Apple. If ESR is representing OSI as being some sort of spokesorganization for the community he's rather mistaken. The trust credits for OSI are not that large. The organization simply has not been around for long enough. If anyone could hold any claim to being a spokesorganization it would be the FSF because while not everyone agrees with the FSF politics and RMS, at least we know where they stand, and they're sticking to their mission. With OSI, who knows? We have the stated goals but no history and no real track record. We have some history on the members, but little record of the actual policies and political position.
The FSF is also aware that they represent a subset of the free software community. That awareness isnt entirely apparent from OSI. Not everyone will be happy with the commercial orientation of the OSI. Those who are not have every right to express their opinion.
Of course negotiation with Apple will be easier. There are only two parties involved, Apple who wants to keep as much control as they can and still call it Open Source and OSI who wants to make certain it falls within the OSD. But if you wish to be an ambassador for the community you cannot just represent OSI, because OSI does not represent the community. And being an ambassador for the rather opinionated political minds of the community is a lot harder. Unfortunately, the ambassador who negotiates outside of his authority will not be met with undivided feelings of gratitude at his homecoming.
2) The Open Source trademark suffers from similar problems. It has a media value, but it's uncertain what it really means. The dispute around it and the use of it to legitimize debatable licenses dont increase the trust either. If a company wishes to place code under the GPL, again, we know what that means. If it's 'Open Source Compliant', who knows? One thing is sure, if it's not BSD or GPL it will get torn to shreds unless it's totally watertight and of some real worth to the free software community, not just a free bugfix ride. Any such license certified compliant just reduces the value of the Open Source trademark, and the less value it has the less benefit there will be for commercial companies to comply to the terms. Trust isnt just there. It has to be earned.
3) Apple and OSI published the APSL. If you go out in public with something you get a public response. If you wish to avoid public responses you keep negotiation under wraps until such a point that all parties who are likely to voice an opinion are satisfied, or you are at least aware what the public response will be. That is a lesson anyone involved in publicity will have to learn.
ESR's rant was a mistake. (Score:1)
If he *did* want to retire, it would have been much more effective to release a simple statement that didn't point fingers. It would have been classy instead of petulant. People would have discussed it with more fervor and it would have been more of a "big deal" because people would have taken it more seriously.
Try this:
"For a variety of reasons I have decided to step aside as the de facto leader of the xxx movement. I will remain in the position until a suitable replacement is found. I would like to thank the people I've worked with over the last xxx months -- it's been a blast and I've learned a lot. But it's time to move on. I will continue to play an as yet undecided role in the xxx movement after my vacation
It's obviously not perfect, but it's short and to the point. People would have figured out the reasons for retirement on their own (or with a little help from "AC" posters <g>), and he would have received far more sympathy. More people would have gotten the "wake up call".
However, it is now very clear that he wasn't intending to retire. People who were suspicious of his motives were, in fact, correct. Now he claims he was trying to stop us from "pushing (ESR and other Important Hackers) nearly over the edge". If that's true, he should have said that in the first place instead of posting something that turned out to be bullshit. It just damages his credibility.
Just my opinion. I realize that it's easy to second guess people, and I recognize ESR's herculean effort. But he wouldn't have had to post the clarification today if he had gotten it right the first time.
More than 24 hours. Apart from that, yes. (Score:1)
Sorry, did you have another suggestion that was better, such as perhaps arbitrarily appointing one person to bestow the approval of the community without soliciting any opinions at all?
--
ESR is the twit who needs to grow up (Score:1)
But such worthless prattle as "Take My Job Please" deserves to be flamed. It was probably just as hastly produced as some of the flames. It seems the main purpose was to say that he is such a great guy and beyond criticism. We learn that he got to meet Steve Jobs and had a groupie (but she was fine)
Plus, in my opinion, he will scare off "the suits" as he so politely calls them. It's this immature attitude of his which is not good for our community. Dispelling FUD against Linux can be accomplished in a much quieter, more dignified manner.
Furthermore, it is rather hypocritical of him to complain about public backstabbing when he himself has no problem putting down RMS and Bruce Perens among others for their views.
Lastely, he called us, - Slashdot kiddies. We are just as a legitimate part of the Linux community as he is.
In conclusion, carefully thought out essays like "The Cathedral and The Bazaar" and some of the good articles he has written for magazines like the Linux Journal, should be praised, but the trash like "Take My Job" and his bizarre ranting about Sheriff Ed and "the zombie army from the fetid mists of Redmond" deserves every flame he got.
On the importance of public debate (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me, but I like the fact that our community "pull[s] this kind of immature crap in public". As an employee of several companies which pulled it in private, let me tell you the public way is better. One of the best things about the way our hacker culture views software vis-a-vis the way Microsoft sees it is that we see it as a scientific enterprise, whereas they see it only as it effects their bottom line.
As a company, you want to present a unified face to the public, to look like everything is peachy and reassure the stockholders that their money is well invested. Science doesn't forgive that sort of crap, however. Science demands that you tell the truth, if you don't, other people will notice and call you on it.
I don't think Eric has sold us out. Certainly I don't think he intended to sell us out. But what I do think happened was that he became quite caught up in the (very) exciting prospect of Apple (of all companies) releasing the source code to OSX. I'm excited about that prospect, too. But the scientific rigor our community rightly prides itself for demands that we not give in to the power of our excitement.
Eric is not evil. But he did make a small mistake, and RMS and Bruce rightly called him on it. While keeping these kinds of things under the covers may make us look better in the popular press, secrecy will ultimately reduce us to being no better than the proprietary models we are fighting against. Only scientific rigor and openness will allow us to deliver a system that kicks the pants off Microsoft, et al.
Honest men have nothing to fear from the truth.
Sean
Watch out (Score:4)
Blowing our chances for what, particularly?
I don't know about anyone else, but if the proprietary software world, or the so-called "real" world, can't handle the fact that every single community has disagreements -- yes, even in their precious Microsoft -- then I don't want them. The only difference between any large software company and us is that our squabbles are in the public.
I say, let us blow our chances. If our chances involve us bowing to pressure from corporations or conglomerates, I want nothing to do with them. That's not what our community's about. It's never been what our community's about.
After all, we do want World Domination -- but we're taking it on our terms.
I dont think it does (Score:1)
So I'm really with him on complaining about it. But cooking up a topic that wont change anyway isnt useful for whatever case he's on either.
The sad thing is, yes, it is part of the culture. Actually it's part of the whole internet culture. Just because we all know that it sucks wont make it go away. We gotta learn to live with it just like we learned to live with all the other ignorant idiots on this planet. (Heck, actually I haven't even found a proof way to do that.)
Let's just concentrate on the work we obviously have to do and try to be able to filter the constructive critiscism from the flames.
(Wish I had a comment filter in RL
Watch out (Score:1)
That's fine, if you can live, work, and play entirely within the confines of the community. I think RMS has managed to do so; I know of no one else who has. Everyone I know at some point has had to deal with commercial software, and much of it is crappy. I have a family to feed, and if I lose my job, and the only job I can find the day I start looking is an NT admin job, I'll have to take it. THAT is ESR's point. If the open source/free/liberated software comunity loses the momentum it has gained in the last year in penetrating the corporate world, it will take a long time to build up that momentum again. The longer it takes, the greater the likelihood that there will be some point in YOUR life when economic necesity will force you to deal with crappy software.
Another thing to keep in mind is that freedom means freedom for everyone. When some are free and some are not, we have a situation not unlike that in the US between 1776 and 1865. If you fight for freedom of speech for yourself and *actively oppose*, by your words, deeds, or indifference, the same freedom of speech for others, you deserve (at best) to be spit on. Why should freedom of software be any different? And before you suggest that the comparison is unapt, consider how I'm communicating.
The community needs a voice. (Score:1)
But the Linux/Open Source community needs someone like ESR to deal with folks like myself -- the mainstream press. The community needs people to take all of these wonderful ideas, translate them into English, and communicate them in such a way as to get everyday, mom-and-pop people excited about them
You're probably right with that but the problem is that it's pretty hard to 'translate all those wonderful ideas into English' with that amount of wonderful ideas. There's no way to avoid getting criticized when doing that. (And there's no way to avoid flames if you are in that spotlight position anyway.)
I wouldnt want to get the heat he gets but I definatly cant understand why this surprises him - especially if he is the opinionated person he appears to be. Those things happen. And in the case of constructive criticsm it's vital for the OSS movement.
You can do better than that (Score:1)
STFU, please (Score:3)
I read two paragraphs, deemed to be important by LT. I read the original essay, and found it to be overly petulant. More importantly, I've read literally dozens of great comments on /. in these past few weeks complaining about this or that aspect of ESR's latest Open Source® move. If he's pissed at legitimate content-free flames, fine - I'm with him. But if he wants to dismiss all complaints as "noise", he's no better than a disingenuous despot. When I hear of a "new and improved" ESR, I'll take the time to read him again. I've read enough for now; I know the drill.
It doesn't surprise me that you got censored by Linux Today ... you're lucky Rob's more lenient than LT.
My LT post has now magically appeared. Maybe they're just not as quick as Slash in posting comments. Maybe they were on a lunch break. I don't know. I hereby apologize if I've insulted LT by my offhand remark. I hope to apologize to ESR someday, but I'm not holding my breath :)
--
Hallelujah... (Score:1)
Honestly, I've always thought he was kinda cool, never realized there were so many people that didn't agree with him (or just didn't like him). I guess that's part of the point of his essays-- we sometimes see things from only one perspective.
Public arguments are essential... (Score:1)
... if we wish to truly make Linux and other open source elements the shiniest toys in our collective toybox. It is the transparency of the process, including the arguments and the flame wars, that allows us to truly form our own opinions, and to plot the course we each want to take on the Ocean of Open Software.
In Neal Stephenson's article mentioned yesterday on Slashdot [ http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning_print.html ] he notes that in the bug-tracking and fixing process, the fact that one can access the questions and comments of other users is essential to the process of open source initiatives creating truly superior software. I think the same is true of creating a truly superior culture surrounding the software, we need to see the "bugs" in the process, and hear the arguments back and forth about which are truly bugs, if we wish to move our tent to the section of the bazaar that suits us.
Our advantage lies not in the fact that we present a coherent illusion of the products we create communally, but in the exact opposite phenomenon: that such a diverse and undisciplined group of individuals creates something useful to all of us without any of us explicitly agreeing on what we are doing.
I don't think we need leaders, at least not in the sense that we need an analog to Jobs or Gates to advocate a coherent "product" that we are building for the common good or to battle MicroSoft. In fact, we tend to rail against such people, because (a) we aren't getting paid by them, and (b) we never agreed on anything in particular except that stable software is useful to us. Perhaps by trying to position himself as such a person, Mr. Raymond has inadvertently drawn the lightening that we are always sure to generate when presented with someone attempting to narrow, or to make coherent, a "movement" that is the antithesis of coherent, monolithic effort.
When you are building a Cathedral, you need an architect. I don't think we need Mr. Raymond or anyone else to come to the bazaar and try to impose (or even abstract) a structure on something that is by nature fluid and chaotic.
Note to ESR: Criticism is healthy. (Score:1)
People are too quick to use the word "flame" to describe all disagreement. That is a dangerous precident to set. Open dissention, such as RMS's public 'bomb', as ESR called it, are the necessary results of open software being truly open. Please don't ask the community to present a false facade of 100% agreement with each other. To do so would be a lie, and would stifle openness.
For the most part I do feel sorry for ESR and all the flak he has recieved, but in this one instance I have to disagree with him. The last thing in the world we want to do is hunker down into a clique and only allow open debate within that clique and not in public.
I find ESR's suggestion that RMS should have brought the issue up in private instead of public to be a scary, appalling suggestion. I also found it truly surprising because it goes against the very openness that ESR keeps pushing for. I was surprised to hear those words out of ESR's "mouth".
A bit bizzare? (Score:3)
I'm surprised that ESR even cares what people think. If he is sure he is doing right, then why should it matter what I think of him? If he is vindicated in the end, I will look like a fool and be forgotten or held up for ridicule. If I'm right, well Eric still doesn't have to do anything about it (He wouldn't know me if he stepped on me
I guess the real question is what kind of discussion, criticism and questioning can ESR and other people out front of the Open Source movement accept? Can they bare having people disagree with them? Can ESR accept that people might not think everything he does is correct?
I'm trying to not flame or be juvenile. These are real questions stuff like ESR's essay raise. Is it ok in the open source movement for the people who aren't leaders to have opinions? Should we just keep our mouths shut? I've come to feel that outiders aren't exactly welcome on the linux-kernel mailing list and this is probably correct. I really can't contribute much of anything to the discussion so I just lurk now, trying to learn.
Is that how Slashdot should be, though? A place for only a few to post?
Disagreement, rudeness, and even out right flame wars are a fairly natural part of life. They don't feel good and quite often are wasting time. But valuable learning can ocur, new ideas can be presented only in a free and open environment. Some people (not always the same people) will get mad and write things that are hurtful. But shouldn't we all be a bit tougher about flames. The old saying "Sticks and Stones break my bones but words can never hurt me" comes to mind. Sure words can and do hurt but that is part of the price of communication. If you never want to be hurt don't be around people.
I don't know. I wouldn't want to be in ESR's shoes and I wouldn't like having so many people atribute so many bad motives to me. But I would like to think that I could rise above the hurt feelings and understand what was being said and for what reason.
We can handle *public* arguments in particular. (Score:2)
Keep the battle intelligent, mature, and public. A cultural division made public makes everyone in the cluture grow by forcing people to decide what they believe. Division in private does little good to anyone.
TheOrb40
apology (Re: A check and balance mechanism...) (Score:1)
Point-by-point analysis (Score:3)
Secondly, I disagree with his constant calls to stop criticising people. If somebody does something you disagree with, by all means, say so. Say so civilly, not with flames, but say so nonetheless.
His whole tone seems a bit condescending and presumptious. The constant references to "we," as if he speaks for the entire Free Software community, are annoying, and so are the references to "Slashdot kiddies" (many of whom include prominent people in the tech world).
His off-hand dismissal of Bruce Perens's well-written and well-reasoned essay [perens.com] is disappointing. None of the points in Perens's essay are addressed. It would seem that Mr. Raymond is afraid to take the points into consideration.
I wholeheartedly disagree with his entire premise regarding the APSL debate. He criticizes the Perens open letter and RMS's reply about it, and says they should've been private rather than public. That is incorrect. OSI's decision regarding the matter was public, so it follows that all commentary on that decision should be public. In addition, the APSL is a license that will impact the Free Software community, so it is important and desirable that the Free Software community be allowed to discuss the effects and possible problems of the license amongst itself. Stifling such discussion to save the ego of one man is not acceptable.
?????!!!!! (Score:1)
>whine and bash someone. If you cannot debate
>issues publicly in a civil manner, then just
>stick to writing code and keep your mouth shut.
Is this irony?
Loud minority (Score:1)
Look at all the NEAT things our government does "for" us. Usually it is as a result of a vocal few whining about some privelege they want. Suddenly, we - the quiet majority - are paying the bill for the desires of the vocal majority.
Time to wake up people and offer kudos to the ones in the Linux community who are in the spotlight and in the crosshairs on our behalf, or we WILL lose them. It becomes too easy to believe that the feelings of the vocal minority are actually the beliefs of ALL of us.
Benny D. Helms
benny@ptinet.net
Horndog
Linus (Score:1)
You're right about the road Linus is taking. It is the only one that is possible to take and keep out of the way of the flames. Anyone can hold strong opinions about politics, but only a few can, or even cares enough to, argue about more arcane subjects like kernel policy.
Translation. (Score:1)
Perhaps it's you and all the other flamers who don't get it. Disagreeing with him on APSL, venting that disgreement on a public forum, as he states RMS and Bruce did, this is all perfectly reasonable, to a certain point. Flinging personal accusations ("overblown ego", "lack of moral integrity", "being a media whore", "not being a true hacker", "fetchmail is shit") like you and your kin insist on doing, is not only useless and childish, it is demeaning to the community to which you sadly strive to take part in. This is IMHO what he was talking about when he referred to you Slashdot kiddies.
But you would never understand that, because you are fat, bald, dumb and ugly!!!
See now, did that look like "valid critizism" (sic) to you?
good point abt culture, read this book (Score:1)
and something else interesting has happened especially within the geek community.. a certain degree of competitiveness and really strong incentive for putdown even amongst the nicest and most well intentioned people. A good friend of mine, and perhaps a truer geek than many of us in ideals, calls it 'the alpha male geek syndrome', and although the statement may be a little far-reaching, i really encourage everyone to think about this, read this book, and examine your own interactions with others
strongly worth a read, and a thought.
peace
Stereotypes, Marytrdom and Growing Up. (Score:1)
-Haifen
?????!!!!! (Score:1)
At last! (Score:1)
Finally I can hear him again with all his meaningless drivel. That's what makes him great.
Public communication is the hallmark... (Score:2)
Open vs. Closed (Score:1)
Yes. "You're absoultely correct" messages aren't terribly useful. You usually respond to something to show why they're wrong, or at least incomplete.
If you're trying to change people's minds, you don't point out their errors to the world at large.
I don't think Perens and RMS really care what ESR thinks. They care what Apple calls thier license and how the community feels about the license.
Geeks do it all the time. Geeks are bad at human relations. Right?
Non sequiter. Geeks also communicate by email. Does that make email bad?
Techie arrogance (Score:1)
If we really want to wrangle this behavior it would behoove us to find it's causes, both psychological and cultural. What promotes it? Is it created by tech culture, or are arrogant people attracted to the tech culture?
I don't thin our aim should be to eliminate our arrogance, though. It can be extremely useful, even essential, especially in the business world. But, when midirected, it can be very self destructive.
Where do I stop? (Score:1)
Having reached a licence you're happy with you (or Apple / whoever the licensor is in the specific case) could post it publicly with your opinion and a request for public discussion before "official" certification.
More than 24 hours. Apart from that, yes. (Score:1)
STFU, please (Score:1)
Sorry, ESR. (Score:3)
That bit about Perens, Jackson, Akkerman, and RMS "throwing bombs"... do I smell smoke? The rest of the article is about how we should NOT flame, and then what does he do?
You gotta love his revisionist history bit about Bruce pushing the APSL into the spotlight. Need I remind him that Apple and OSI went first in claiming that the APSL was Open Source with capital letters? Bruce was pointing out specific areas in which the APSL failed to comply with the OSD. And if you read SI's response, they only successfully refute the one where Apple goes belly-up, thus you can't publish your changes to them. As for the termination clause, what if Apple can't tell the developers which sections of the code are infringing??????? They could potentially decide to pull all the code so as not to reveal the specific code under litigation.
Bruce and I have talked right here on Slashdot, and I see nothing that deserves ESR's treatment of him in his article. Bruce is nice and terse, doesn't use loads of confusing technospeak, and DOESN'T FLAME IF SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH HIM! Ironically I was on ESR's side in those debates on the grounds that the OSD is too wide open for interpretation
As for RMS... He wasn't even talking about the APSL being Open Source, he was talking about it being a Free Software License, two (unfortunately) different terms! Plus RMS wasn't flaming him either... he was actually being rational about it!
One word about the flames on Slashdot... That's what Commander Taco put "comment threshold" for. If you want to, you could read only the 3,4,and 5 star comments (though then you wouldn't see any of mine, I've never gotten above 2) and see what the intelligent people think.
Finally, I expect a "leader" to respond to any kind of criticism, friendly or hostile, in an intelligent manner. Instead ESR takes this opportunity to bash Bruce and RMS like, he says, many did to him. And even though he makes decent points about how we shouldn't flame, he does it in such a way that he doesn't sound much better than the flamers, though He hasn't used the f-word yet. Indeed, after reading through his articles, I wonder if his maturity level is really all that far above the "Slashdot kiddies". Granted, I actually enjoy reading the comments when trolls come up -- must be ESR has no sense of humor.
In conclusion, I bet ESR will think this is just another flame from a "Slashdot kiddie." Fine. I really don't care. ESR has like 0 credibility left for me after those two articles. "Ooh, I'm getting backlash from everybody now that Bruce has dragged the APSL into the spotlight!!! It's just too much! Guess I'll retire now -- Sorry, just kidding! I'm only going on vacation to practice my shooting so I can kill all the Slashdot kiddies that disagree with me!"
OK, I made that last part up, but that's about the tone of this last article. I hope he's feeling better after that vacation of his, because we need a united front before the rest of the world starts laughing at us (again)... I can hear it already... the only part of his article that I liked, BTW, although I'm sure he wants it on his terms.
What I'm glad for. (Score:1)
I'm glad for that.
I'm concerned that he suggested people aren't asking him questions directly as opposed to sending articles to Linux Today or
Maybe that's the bed he's made for himself, that even people as supposedly clued-in as RMS don't know how to talk to ESR without "going public."
I don't know. All I know is that when ESR is doing his primary job (which is ambassador, not "prankster,") he does it well, and he does it well in ways that most of us could not appreciate, nor credit fully. I'm glad he doesn't feel like he should retire before he finds someone else who can do what he does.
Because at this stage in the game, what he does is essential.
J.
A check and balance mechanism on OSI/ESR (Score:2)
There should be a "check and balance" mechanism to make sure Eric stays loyal to the hacker community in his handling of "Open Source." For example, Eric should be responsible to the SPI, who shall have the final say over anything controversial. Or the OSI shall license the trademark "Open Source" from the SPI in its marketing activities.
STFU, please (Score:1)
It doesn't surprise me that you got censored by Linux Today ... you're lucky Rob's more lenient than LT.
Aha! The Real Eric Raymond showed up. (Score:2)
I've always liked Eric's writing. He's NOT a leader, anymore than Thomas Paine was an actual Leader of the American independence movement. Paine's "Rights of Man" was incredibly important advocacy in the independence movement. And there was disagreement with it.
The "Cryptonomicon" mentioned on a previous article is equally as important as "Cathedral and Bazaar". I disagree with minor points of both essays. BUT Both are clear documents that really explain the ethics, the mindset, the intent and the direction that the community wants.
We as a community deride self promoting demagogues and others who seek to co-opt the free & open source community for their own ends. This is healthy, neccessary and appropriate. What is happening, however is the same lack of basic understanding and Thought that we love to bitch about in "Lusers, AOL'ers, Script Kiddies" is coming from "Slashdot Kiddies".
I for one, am not impressed. For crying out loud, don't you insert favorite epithet here people Think?
Watch out (Score:2)
A revolution doesn't last if all the revolutionaries get tired of fighting and go home. If you give people a reason to take up arms alongside, they will. Equally, however, if you give people a reason to remain neutral or to ally with the enemy, they will. A revolution is not built on good ideas alone. A revolution is the product of people working and fighting together towards a common goal, often reconciling their own differences for the good of the movement as a whole.
That possibility...the possibility of actually creating a movement of solid and lasting potential...that's what we might be destroying.
The phrase "our terms" refers to a plurality. "Our terms" are defined by the community as a whole. You're not talking about "our terms" here...we have never defined "our terms". You're talking about your interpretation of the "terms" which just might not be correct.
- deb
You make the assumption ESR is accused of (Score:1)
I can't find a way to read this that doesn't equate "maturity" with "agreeing with ESR". This is precisely the fault that the higher-scored posts in this thread accuse ESR of.
--
Where do I stop? (Score:1)
Terribly optimistic (Score:3)
Second, there are no obvious repercussions for being a hyper-reactive asshole. Oh, as a community we feel it, but I suspect this loud minority doesn't think twice about their comments after they hit 'send'.
You can't silence those that will jump at the chance to criticise things that they don't understand. Those that do understand, however, do very well to put forth the effort to explain to the unwashed masses.
If you have something with more worth than a simple opinion, post it and let the world know. The people that are willing to listen will see the clear contrast between fact and flame.
If you are going to accept the position as a spokesperson, performer, or cult leader, you are
spinning your wheels if you are trying to change your audience. It is you who need to adapt in order to let them resonate with your message.
A check and balance mechanism on OSI/ESR (Score:1)
Speaking of twits ... (Score:2)
Everytime I hear this argument it makes me sick.
I'm sorry I have to be the one to point this out to you, but not everyone in the community is equal, nor should they be equal. I don't agree with RMS very often, but his work on the FSF and GNU (and even Emacs) gives him high stature in the community. ESR has done a lot of quality work as well, which gives him high stature. Linus has contributed to the community and is similarly held in high regard.
For myself, I don't count myself as equal to the likes of RMS, ESR, Linus, or hundreds of other community members who have given so much more than I have. I've made some small contributions here and there, but nothing to their scale. As for you, Mr/Ms Anonymous Coward, if you don't feel like using your name, your stature must not be worth much ... certainly not worth that of RMS, Linus or ESR.
Equality is an idea that the masses like to cling to because it helps them pretend that they're better than they really are. No one is really equal because no one's contributions exactly match those contributions of another. That doesn't mean that everyone is worthless if they haven't written an OS kernel or a mondo-text editor or explained why free software works. It does mean that community members are more likely to respect and listen to those people who have contributed the most. If you want to be listened to, all you have to do is contribute ... instead of flames.
Mixed Feelings (Score:2)
ESR has been here for a very long time, he should be very familiar with flaming. He should have known that by trying to speak for the "Open Source Movement" he is setting himself up for flaming. If such a person can't handle the heat, they should get out of the oven.
ESR explains his job as My job, the job I've been doing one way or another ever since picking up the Jargon File in 1990, is to describe and explain and reflect the values of the tribe of hackers. Not to lead it.... That job, I have no problem with, I think he has done it well. The Jargon File, the Cathedral and the Bazaar, Homesteading in the Noosphere, all of these are excellent essays. I may not agree with every point made in them, but they are still very useful and important works, he should be applauded for them.
But with his position in the OSI, he has been trying to lead, regardless of how much he denies it. He has tried to lead Businesses to change to his view of what a license should be, and he has tried to lead the various hacker communities to accept his view of what a license should be. When the APSL issue came up, it became clear to me that I don't agree with what he thinks a license should be.
My problem is not with Apple, they acted in good faith from everything I've seen. My problem is with ESR telling Apple that if they do their license his way, people like me will be happy with it. I can't speak for "people like me", and my opinion won't affect Apple one way or another (I have no plans to get MacOS X Server). But if ESR insists so vehemently (more vehemently than Apple, who apparently plans to change the APSL) that the license is "Open Source", than I have to say the term "Open Source" becomes useless to me, since I won't be able to trust that an "Open Source" license gives me the freedom I want in my software. I'm not saying that all companies should switch licenses to my definition of Free, I am saying that ESR's drive to get companies to change their licenses is pointless as far as I'm concerned, since they aren't coming up with Free Software licenses.
If ESR is looking to get someone to replace him in his stated job as anthropologist to the hackers, I will be sad. He is the best person for that job. If he is looking to get someone to replace him in leading the community away from freedom, I say it is a job better left undone. And no, I don't think that loss of freedom was his intent, I think it is a side effect of him picking an impossible task to do, and the compromises that had to be made to attempt it.
Open vs. Closed (Score:1)
You make your opinions public, don't be surprised if people debate them publicly. Whether that's being good or bad at human relations probably depends on which (and how many) humans they're trying to relate to.
Re: Open vs. Closed (Score:1)
As for sending mail, there's several problems. It's acknoledging opensource.org is the final arbitrator. It's not. The community is. Your claim that they were sent to "spank" you, is questionable. Even if it was, complain about the style and purpose, not about the form.
Re: I'd still like to see an apology. (Score:1)
So what? (Score:1)
I disagree w/ one of his major points... (Score:1)
Public discussion is a waste of time if the discussion is based on a misunderstanding. What is accomplished by arguing about an illusion?
The shattering of the illusion. If one person holds an illusion, in a community as large as ours there's a good chance that others do as well. If it is brought to light, then it can be answered where all can see.
Also, any organization the likes of OSI can not spend its time answering thousands of one-on-one questions. The best one can hope for is that they answer publicly and quickly the issues that bubble to the top out of community discussion.
Public discussion is never a waste of time. If you are wrong, you learn and others who might believe the same learn. If you are right, then the issue is brought to the table. Even if you are wrong, the fact that people misinterpret what you've said is a valuable piece of information for any public organization.
Speak publicly, be proud of speaking up, and be willing to acknowledge when you're wrong.
Cyberfox!
Mail me! (Score:2)
cheers,
--
Athens vs Sparta (Score:2)
When we have an issue, we discuss it at length with logic and rhetoric. We come to an informed decision.
When the Spartans need to make a decision, it's usually decided by who can yell the loudest.
He still doesn't get it (Score:1)
ps. please disregard all of the above comments: as I disagree with ESR's viewpoint I am undoubtedly one of his immature Slashdot kiddies.
Terribly optimistic (Score:1)
However, although I disagree with Eric on a variety of topics, I do sincerely hope that he stays with us. He is an important contributor to our community, an excellent writer and shrewd Speaker To The Press.
Somebody wrote that Eric has had to much corporate coffee in the last couple of month. Perhaps some holidays spent with emacs and source code can recharge his batteries and flush out the suit-poison ;-)
You can do better than that (Score:1)
Good luck (Score:1)
What's new is now the folks who are flaming and the subjects of their gripes are getting harder to destiguish and are often at the same rung on our social ladder. What we see here on slashdot is essentially what goes on in the coffee room, but now it's written down for all to see and respond to, including the gripee. I, myself, have never been in an organization of more than 10 people where the social dynamics didn't get ugly at some point. Gossip, cliques, bigotry, (sometimes even mutany) are everywhere. They've just never been so obviously visable and well recorded before. If this is going to be fixed, it is going to be a fundamental change in how people behave. Getting the leaders to take their dirty laundry out of the public forum would be a good place to start and would set a nice example.
Good luck.
A check and balance mechanism on OSI/ESR (Score:1)
Rather the idea, surely, is that when someone asks as a *spokesperson* for a movement, organisation, whatever, they should try to make sure that what they are saying is acceptable to as much of that movement as possible *before* saying it - and that it is the spokesperson's responsibility to do so. Otherwise it is all too easy to predict that parts of the movement will disown the spokesperson's words and arguments and worse will follow.
I guess you might achieve this by asking any self-appointed spokesperson to make a clear distinction between *their own* views and *their movement's views* - the making of such a distinction would seem only polite. Some ESR things fall clearly into the "own views" category, such as the immensely foolish Gates-as-Hitler picture -- far more childishly alienating to the outside world than anything RMS has ever done -- while others are far more broadly acceptable both within and without the community.
You can do better than that (Score:3)
I did read it on the other hand, so I'll flame it happily where it needs to be flamed.
What Eric seems to be missing throughout this paper is the reason people are so quick to publically and vocally flame his decisions and statements. So far as I can tell, and indeed so far as anyone can tell, Eric appears to make statements and decisions based solely on his opinion. I have never seen Eric ask "what do you people think?" of the community. If he would start asking for and representing the views of the community he claims to represent, people will be more likely to accept him as a representative.
So far he has not been representing my views. Because his personal views are very much in conflict with mine in all too many ways, I have a hard time trusting that Eric is going to do the right thing. As long as I can't trust him to do the right thing, I'm going to have to remain very skeptical of him and his announcements.
I have watched Eric make a number of what I consider to be grave and even dangerous errors in judgement. I'm certainly not the only one who thinks so otherwise he'd be getting a lot less flame mail. My suggestion to Eric is therefore that he stop trying to lead the community. He is not IMO doing a very good job at it anyway. Eric may consider himself an ambassador, but that isn't how he's been acting or if he has he's not been my ambassador and likely not yours either.
By acting rather than first thinking to consult the group which collectively is far more important than any one man's ego, he invites flames and other public figures in the community to openly oppose him. This is where statements like those from RMS and the joint statement issued by Bruce Perens, SPI, and Debian come from.
Eric, take the afternoon off. Go home, spend some time with your family, go out for ice cream or something... Come back tomorrow morning and think about what I've written then. You'll get a lot further if you don't try to do everything yourself.
You can do better than that (Score:1)
You seem to be saying that to be polite you should send any disagreements to public statements privately, but the person to whom you were responding (and with whom you were disagreeing) had an email address shown. Did you email him privately or did you just respond publicly to his public comments? Why do you think others should behave differently to that?
We can handle arguments. (Score:3)
One. Eric rightly states that the job of leader is not his to give away. But even if it were his, it would not be something for him to give away any more than a President gets to choose his successor. Leadership is gifted by the masses, not handed down from father to son.
Eric should be the first to realise that the media all too easily confuse 'spokesman' for 'leader', simply because spokespeople often are leaders and the two often blur into one. But what has Eric done to counter this and ensure the he is seen as a voice, an eloquent and inspirational voice, but only one voice? As has been said elsewhere, why does he think that his personal qualifications form the job-requirements for someone else doing similar work? Similar. Not a drop-in subtitute-Eric doing exactly what Eric chooses to.
Two. Any thriving culture or microculture is not afraid of arguments. Eric almost seems to be saying 'Don't argue with me, cos it makes us look silly'. What?! Relegating RMS, Perens and Jackson to the rank of squabbling children only shows (to those looking for proof) the sense of arrogance which Eric has become associated with. We should not be lectured on swallowing our adverse feelings on issues such as APSL in order to avoid upsetting those working to improve the situation. Nor do we want testosterone-burdened flame-throwers to have a field day and make people's lives miserable, but the two should not be confused. Responses to APSL from those well-known were rational expressions of concern, and I for one am happy to see people express themselves freely without feeling a need to seek Eric's ascension first.
The media at large is not used to seeing arguments within a group as a positive thing. Political divisions within a party are pounced upon with glee as a sign of weekness, and you NEVER get to hear of Ballmer/Gates flare-ups. But ARGUMENTS CAN BE A GOOD THING. We make progress through rational and well-reasoned arguments, as otherwise we would rarely find with hindsight that a decision we had made had been the right one.
We have Prime Minister's question-time, not so that we can all have a good laugh at everyone tearing each other apart, but so that we can have confidence in our leaders and hold them to account. The arguments make it plain to see when a gaff has been made, and equally plain to see when an action has been well thought-through.
Just my thoughts.
Open is good (Score:2)
Who said that the license qualified? Not the community. ESR said it was good enough for us, and we had better praise Apple for it. But that's not how it works. The "screaming at the top of one's lungs" came from members of the community who were concerned that ESR was trying to make our decisions for us, and that those decisions were wrong. To be a truly effective spokesman, ESR needs to recognize that there will be conflicts between his own beliefs and those of many in the open source community, and he needs to deal honestly with those conflicts. I don't think anyone expects ESR to do all of the things that he seems to feel are necessary; communicating the strengths and advantages of open source is more than enough.
A plea for civility... (Score:4)
And to forstall one set of objections, this particular stalwart twit spends his spare time working on a couple of GPL'ed projects, with uncertain effect, but great conviction...
My beef with ESR (Score:2)
But, the problem that I have with his position on this issue is that his main complaint is that the community (or as he puts it, "the tribe") would dare to disagree with him.
He says that Stallman and Perens "threw bombs in public" when all that they did was to post their thoughts in a public forum. If anything, isn't that what this community is all about? We take pride in judging each other by the quality of our thinking (usually expressed in code, but sometimes in English) instead of by other more mainstream measures. We let each other state their case and then choose a position based on the merits of the argument. But when members of the community express a position contrary to that of ESR, he resorts to the ad hominem attack.
If ESR really wanted Perens, Stallman, et al to approach OSI and Apple privately, he should have consulted with them privately BEFORE he publicly stated his opinion that the APSL met the requirements of the Open Source Definition.
Terribly optimistic (Score:4)
Secondly, I really dislike the way he states some of his points:
Why are the stakes too high? Big companies won't invest in Linux? I don't think so, they already have. Linux won't continue to grow? The self appointed "leaders" will quit their jobs? I don't think that would be a bad thing. I'd like it if someone could give me a good reason why "flamers exist on slashdot - traced back to usenet - film at 11" would be such a damaging story to Linux.
1.People who should have known better (Perens/Akkerman/Jackson, RMS) threw bombs in public instead of approaching OSI and Apple privately with their concerns.
This point really gets me. I thought the free software/open source community was different - that it was a public forum for discussing ideas. I would very much like to see the debate between Apple and the free software community (not just ESR or RMS or Bruce Perens, etc.) before Apple decides. I think many people would start getting disillusioned if all the "important" decisions were debated and resolved before we even heard about them. Why write free software if someone else will be deciding how companies use it, for example?
Now this is a wake up call: for us, for Slashdot (Score:2)
That being said, we all can learn something from the events of this week:
Shut the fuck up if all you are going to do is whine and bash someone. If you cannot debate issues publicly in a civil manner, then just stick to writing code and keep your mouth shut.
Encourage each other to communicate more effectively and factually. Do not argue just to impress your friends or self.
Remember that people like RMS/ESR/Linus are afterall human. They can make mistakes, they can act stupid, they can say stupid things. When they do, we need to politely deal with the situation. We don't need to start fragging them.
If you do get angry about an issue, try not to make it any worse. Sometimes you can, sometimes you won't. But, for gosh sakes, at least try people! We *ARE* on the same side!!!
For Rob et al. at Slashdot: Please consider removing the Anonymous Coward facility from the site. It would not be censorship. Let us be individually accountable for our commentary and do not give us a cloaking device that 99% of the time ends up being abused as a way to insult, ridicule and hurt people. If someone doesn't want to post unless they can anonymously, then let them go. We as a community do not need them here. They are a liability, not an asset.
My friends, we *do* need to grow up like ESR says. Many of us are immature, but that's ok. You can be forgiven, if you also are willing to learn from your mistakes and from others. If you are not, then please go somewhere else. This is a serious issue, one that has been becoming more and more volatile in lots of places. I for one will try to be more patient and civil...I hope my fellow tribefolk will do the same.
Open vs. Closed (Score:3)
There's a time for taking things in the open, and there's a time for talking person-to-person.
Consider this: The open letter approach is often used as a rebuke against those who are otherwise unresponsive.
That's not a very good way of starting a discussion. Don't bring out the big guns without reason.
For one thing, it's not useful to start out from a position of conflict.
Second, there is no need to use a public forum for the correction of a few peoples' private, personal misperceptions. Take it open if there appears to be ample evidence of a willful attempt to mislead or betray the public. Simple misunderstandings or disagreements don't count. A person's confusion is not adequate cause to call for the Bright Light Of Open Truth To Rain Down.
Further, taking things public tends to bring out the ego. Rather than a civil discussion between colleagues ("Hey mack, what's this thing mean?"), each party tries to out-rhetoric the other with pompous verbiage ("We the undersigned believe that Slim Goodbody has overstepped the bounds of his role, and grossly mispresented the goals of the MP3 Player GUI Widget Association"). Before even trying to clear things up, the parties have fortified their positions.
This is not the way to progress.
This needs to be said (Score:3)
If we do not improve in this very area, there will not be a culture.
criticism (Score:2)
And here's my "testosterone-crazed" opinion: Why does the community need to present a unified face to the world? esr's argument was that otherwise, the mainstream press and corporations would lose interest. But how important is that interest? For all the corporate interest in free/open-source software lately, relatively little code has been freed. There's practically as many lines of new licenses as of new code from various companies.
In my opinion, the individuals are more important than the corporations.
I disagree w/ one of his major points... (Score:2)
If I feel that the OSI or SPI or ESR or BP or whomever has made a mistake, or more specifically I disagree with them, I have a responsibility to make it public. I agree that it's not necessary to make it public in a nasty, furnace-heated fashion, but it is absolutely essential that it be brought to light.
Why?
Because that's the essence of democracy. Because if we have speakers, we must have a method of informing them that we disagree, and showing others why, so that they too can decide to agree or disagree with more information, or even to shoot down our information if it's bad. Private disagreement (email and such) is good, and a useful thing, but it doesn't get the issues out in front of people who may not have thought them through yet.
This is fundamental to our community, and ESR absolutely has to understand that. In fact, anyone who claims to speak for us, has to be aware that their every action will be publicly discussed, and that this is a good thing.
It's healthy.
If public second guessing of your actions bothers you, then you need to not be in the public eye. There is no public figure who does NOT recieve constant second guessing, and in the case of our representatives (which ESR is trying to be), this is 100% appropriate, as it should help guide them.
The most valuable thing in ESR's latest essay is that they did take a look at the Apple license, and are negotiating a 1.1 version of it. To quote:
I wasn't much injured by learning that many people thought the license was broken and OSI had made a wrong call -- I've got a bit more courage than to collapse over that, it just meant OSI had a duty to re-examine and maybe re-negotiate.
This is the fundamental nature of directed public outrage, and public debate. What he calls an electronic lynching bee, I call the voice of the community. Certainly, when people flame personal attacks, it seems much more like a lynch mob, but the core fact is that the sheer level of community outrage forced a reexamination of the license. Hopefully it forces a reexamination of the future licenses they consider as well.
So what does this all mean?
It means don't hesitate to air your disagreements in public. It's not 'immature' to discuss and disagree in public.
It means do hesitate to call names, spout vitriol, and all the other things you should know better than to do already.
It also means that ESR himself shouldn't resort to these things as well (although he does write them much better). I think that RMS and Perens disagreements with him were appropriate and absolutely necessary for the community to see to be informed, and to raise the necessary public outrage to get them to renegotiate. His backhanded insults to them and their public comments are just as unnecessary as the worst Slashdot kiddies and their spiritual kin, only written much better and more subtly.
In the end, though, I consider the statement that the OSI is renegotiating a 1.1 license to be the (sadly lacking otherwise) acknowledgement that they did make a mistake, and are trying to fix it. This makes me much happier personally, because it means that they are listening to the community. With that knowledge, I feel substantially more secure about their goals.
Cyberfox!
Re: I'd still like to see an apology. (Score:2)
1) Fact: Bruce, RMS, etc. were very quick to jump out into a public forum to attack him and the APSL. He agrees that they might have had valid points, but states that he wishes that they had come to him directly first, because it would've facilitated matters with Apple.
2) Fact: There are quite a few immature "kiddies" on
-Snibor Eoj
Linus (Score:3)
There are probably a couple of reasons. The biggest I think is simply the fact that unlike ESR and RMS, he's not an egotist. I admire him greatly for that. I know that if I were in his position I would have a hard time being as humble as he seems to be. He also seems very reasonable, not overly reactive. ESR is REACTING to the flamers, yelling back, although in a much more civilazed manor perhaps, but you can still see the 'Shame on all of you evil people for flamming be, you should all go home and feel guilty', between the lines. It is true that were a very hostile culture, especially toward anyone trying to be a 'leader', but I've always seen the hacker culture as sort of anarchistic, we dont really go for leaders. Just do your own thing, share, and it will all work itself out in the end. That seems to be the route Linus is taking, no politics, no marketing, just do what you do and it will work out, build a better operating system and they will come. They have. Yes, to some extent I would like to see Linux embraced by the corporate world, so I could use it at work, but really, I dont know if I want to see it embraced by the corporate world because it's marketed better, I'd like to see it win because it's better technology. Maybe that will never happen, maybe corporations need marketing to convince them. After all the only thing that keeps Microsoft going so well is marketing (oh yeah, and that pesky monopoly thing). Still, I dont want leaders and I dont want marketing. I dont want a movement, or a revolution. I want good software, free software. I write software because I enjoy it, I use linux because it's good. Nothing else matters. Go ahead and flame ESR, or dont, it really doesnt matter. He's done really cool things in the past (Jargon File, Cathedral and the Bazzaz), but right now, all he does is marketing, and marketing I could do without.
Sorry for the randomness and lack or paragraph structure, I'm not feeling very organized today
Insert clever comeback here (Score:2)
I may not have made much sense to you in the first post, but I still believe that ESR made a mistake.
Are you saying that his two rants were self-referential? The only way they make sense is if he meant to illustrate the idiocy of masturbatory, nonsense flamage by doing it himself...in a fancy Gen-X post-ironic way. I, personally, didn't see it that way - seems more like a standard "open source leader has bitter, egotistical fit" to me. I'm sure the people who flamed him before will continue to do so; in fact, he has thrown more fuel on the fire. He should know better than to feed the trolls. I mean, come on... "Don't pity me -- I walked into this job with my eyes open. I knew the road would wear on me. I expected some people on my own side would damn near bury me in immaturity and bullshit" are sentences uttered by a character in the climax of a grade 11 literature assignment, not something that should be used without irony by an adult in a leadership position.
Plenty of people took his "retirement" seriously. If enough people miss the "message" -- enough to warrant a whole new essay explaining the first one -- I'd say mistakes were made, wouldn't you? Or is it easier to be smug and decry the poor reading comprehension of everyone who actually took ESR seriously?
L. Ron McKenzie
Sloppy Reader and Slashdot Poster
Imagine, civility makes things run smoothly... (Score:2)
This is not to say that if quiet discussion doesn't solve the problem it's not apropos to scream really loud, just keep the two in order.
Just my thoughts, or reasonable facsimiles.
Conflict resolution (Score:2)
On the other hand I an disturbed by the idea that RMS, Perens and the rest should have complained to ESR without making their concerns known to the rest of us. Most of us are not license lawyers, and the problems with Apple's license are subtle but very real. I think it is in the best traditions of the community that they raise their concerns in public (perens was even very polite about it). Consider what would have happened if ESR and the rest had agreed to complkain to Apple and Apple had done nothing ? Others would have noticed the problem, but some people would probably have used Apple's code illegally or been caught out by conditions they did not understand.
So how do we do conflict resolution properly ? I think it should be done in public, where we can all participate, that it should be done without flamage and personal attacks, and that we have to make it clear to the 'suits' that that is how we work. Some of the problems with the APSL seen to come from its having been discussed in private were only the OSI could review Apple's decisions. Understandably they missed some things.
A side point (Score:3)
However, after reading these two articles by ESR, I don't understand how anyone in this community can possibly not respect him. Yes, you may disagree with some of his viewpoints; yes, you may think that his approach to some things could be improved. But none of that changes the fact that he is out there doing these things, and we all reap the benefit.
I can understand his position, because if I were there, I'd be doing the same thing he is: I'd carry on in the work that needed to get done, but I'd get mightily pissed at all the people who couldn't seem to appreciate what I was doing for them. (And yes, he does it for you, even if you didn't elect him to do so.)
If I had the wherewithall, the background, and the experience to do what Eric is doing, I'd have been one of the first to email him and tell him I'd love to help out. I realize that his efforts are vital to this community, and I think that we would all be worse off without him and his ilk. Alas, I cannot, because I have not been a part of this community long enough, I have not hacked enough code, I've never modified the Linux kernel, etc. So, for now, I can only sit on the sidelines and watch and learn, and hope that people like Eric continue to arise, and not get beaten down by the masses.
-Snibor Eoj
When he's right, he's right. (Score:2)
The man's right, but I believe he's fighting an unwinnable battle, at least as long as Linux remains anything less than the most widely-used OS on the planet.
Proponents of alternative operating systems have, for years, been jumping into flame wars over how ours is the best, yours sucks, and who's keeping ours from #1? Many of us have seen this played out by Amiga users, or Mac users, or NeXT users, ad nauseum. I'm utterly convinced that (as I've seen suggested by ESR, Katz, and others) the geek culture is overflowing with young men whose testosterone levels have gotten way too high, and who will use any excuse to lash out at anyone that looks like a good target.
Why does Linux and other free software attract people like that? Several reasons that I can think of (not necessarily in any order):
1. They love software they can hack on, either to improve their skills, or just for the sheer hell of it.
2. It's free. These aren't people with huge budgets.
3. It's not mainstream. That's probably what attracted me to Linux in the first place. Using fringe software provides a feeling of superiority (look at those poor bastards who don't know any better), attention from the unwashed masses (What is that you're running?), and a chance to be an expert in something relatively few people know much about. It's all about a feeling of power, really. Unfortunately, once some people feel they've got power, they don't know what to do with it -- they just need to use it however they can. Often, it means becoming a bully, picking on every little shortcoming they perceive in another. Other times, they look for a big, visible public target and aim there, in an effort to show everyone how powerful they are.
There are really only a couple cures that I know of: new toys, or maturity. If a shinier new toy comes along, some will move on to that, and find other targets to attack. Others will simply grow up, and learn to deal with people on a rational level, learning to contruct rather than destroy. It just takes a little time.
Unfortunately, we're going to have people like this around as long as Linux is still the shiniest toy in the toybox. It's just the way it works.
Open vs. Closed (Score:5)
Also, if ESR wanted the problems to be quiet, he should have discussed it with Perens, RMS and others before coming out with a press release. If you send things openly on the net, they will get discussed openly.
I'd still like to see an apology. (Score:4)
1) The accusation of "Bomb Throwing" levelled against Bruce Perens, RMS, et. al. The points that these people raised were carefully considered and valid. ESR's rebuttals have been largely ad-hominim, and I think he owes these people an apology, rather than the announcement of a planned vacation with his preferred firearm.
2) The dismissal of Slashdot as a forum for "kiddies". Sure, it's a public forum, and it has the disadvantages of such (though moderation may change this). The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of good thinking to be found in the comments here. Dismissing Slashdot is disingenuous-- if Slashdot just a bunch of kiddies, then why does ESR feel compelled to mention it at all?
Slashdot is widely recognized in the mainstream press as the premier public forum for debate on issues surrounding open source and free software. I think OSI can only be held accountable for their actions by the community that they wish to represent, and they dismiss the prefered forum of that community at their peril.
Yes, ESR deserves our support, and our thanks. He also deserves to be held accountable by those who he is trying to serve.
So, basically, we who flamed ESR were right. (Score:2)
. . . nor have to listen to testosterone-poisoned twerps ranting ``who elected you?'' or ``your ego is out of control''?
If this character thinks that anybody who disagrees with him is a "testosterone-poisoned twerp", his ego is out of control.
I've read both of his bitch sessions, and I realize that we all need to get things off our chests sometimes -- but his attitude is 100% defensive. Nowhere does he admit the possibility that he might ever be wrong, or even mistaken. He just flames.
People who should have known better (Perens/Akkerman/Jackson, RMS) threw bombs in public . . .
No, esr, NO. I very carefully read everything Perens had to say about it (including a lot of his posts on slashdot) and he was not throwing bombs. He was raising sensible concerns in an extremely polite and considerate way. If Eric Raymond perceives all disagreement with his views as "throwing bombs", then Eric Raymond has a very serious problem with his ego -- namely, that it's out of control.
Basically, Raymond seems to have perceived Perens' concerns as a "challenge to his authority", which is the one thing Perens was clearly trying hardest to avoid.
we need to learn not to pull this kind of immature crap in public any more.
Raymond's tantrums (e.g. this one) are extremely public, far more public than those of the average AC. Raymond has a number of things in public which many members of the community have considered extremely "immature" -- but if we dare utter a word of this, I guess we must be "testosterone-poisoned twerps" or something. Look, the Gates==Hitler thing was the work of a classic testosterone-poisoned twerp. Those who stood up in public and said so deserve a medal.
When you see twits going on a rampage, speak up against it without descending to their level.
Eric, you have not gone on a single rampage in the last several months but that I've spoken up about it, and I have always made an honest attempt not to sink to your level. For example, I've never pasted a picture of your face onto a picture of Hitler's body -- nor will I, ever.
Ain't'cha proud of me?
The energy we spend on fighting each other is energy we're not spending on our work
You're right. The energy you spend flaming slashdotters in general is entirely wasted. Then again, it's your own energy, to do with as you please. It's a free country, innit?
Change Us or Change Them? (Score:4)
Must we?
This uncovers an interesting question: how much of our identity is tied up in how we communicate? How much of who we are -- the geeks who hack code because it's fun and make it free because it's right -- is the free-for-all, raucous, often rancorous debates that rage for days, weeks, and months on our mailing lists?
This sort of debate used to make me very uncomfortable. I cringed when someone was on the receiving end of a lambasting. Then I noticed some things:
There's always someone flaming Those who flame too often marginalize themselves Things still proceed, mostly What does this mean? I don't know. It appears to me to mean that despite being overwhelmingly short of resources and despite facing active resistance from within, we get things done. Not bad. =]
One other noteworthy bit: all of the above goes on in the Corporate halls, too; anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. The difference? We don't get to see them argue...and we don't get to tell them when they're wrong until they've already committed to a course of action.
As I started this essay, I intended to leave the question open because I didn't think I had an opinion; as you can see, I didn't, because I found I do. If you want to represent this community, do it with dignity and don't be ashamed that we're different -- it's that very difference which has gotten us so very far in so short a time.
Watch out (Score:2)
If the door is slammed on open source by commercial entities, it will still exist, but there will be much less momentum and fewer people to work on it.
I think that is where we can really blow it.