Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

lunduke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 447 posts

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#361

Post by loeg »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #325
api wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a good chance Google wouldn't exist without it.

Not necessarily. Remember, the dot com boom happened before Linux was even a serious contender as a server OS; back then Sun Microsystems was king. Google was founded in '98 and the expense of Sun hardware might have slowed Google's profitability slightly but not enough to matter. We might be talking about the Google-Sun duopoly today instead of the Wintel duopoly today had Linux not existed.

BSD was around, popular, and much more mature than the Linux ecosystem in that early 90s, but was dogged by the BSDi lawsuit. (In fact, SunOS was derived from BSD for most of the 80s, through 1992 or so, when they jumped to AT&T/USL Unix — likely as a result of the lawsuit.) This is arguably the raison d'être of Linux as well[1]:

> If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened.

[1]: https://gondwanaland.com/meta/history/interview.html

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#362

Post by a1369209993 »

paweladamczuk wrote: post #158

It makes me sad that people are so sensitive that reading a message like the one ESR wrote drives them away from participating in projects and communities that otherwise would interest them. At least this seems to be the narrative of the "PC supporters" here. The world is full of assholes. I think it's better to get used to it than to shelter yourself, try to make every space safe or withdraw from interacting with ot…

> It makes me sad that people are so sensitive that reading a message like the one ESR wrote drives them away from participating in projects and communities that otherwise would interest them.

If it helps, people are not actually like that (or least people that far along the bell curve are much rarer than you seem to believe). The people you're seeing are taking (no, I don't mean feigning) offence in a strategic attempt to shut down someone who disagrees with them politically.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#363

Post by zozbot234 »

api wrote: post #359
ofrzeta wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

".. parties who seek to limit the promise of free software" that's an interesting phrase as Free Software has always also been about limiting freedom. After all a license is something that puts certain restrictions on the usage of a piece of software. This is not much different to accusing the GPL of "limiting the promise of free software". Or the AGPL for that matter, which is probably what the OSI proponents are th…

The MongoDB license they are picking on barely differs from the AGPL.

This doesn't seem to be accurate, especially as far as OSI and OSD is concerned. Say what you want about the AGPL, but the license does not discriminate against any field of endeavour - it does not state "you can't use this software to offer a network-based endpoint" or anything like that. It just triggers a source distribution requirement in case of such use, by analogy with distributing the software itself to the public (an analogy which is in fact supported by copyright law itself, viz. "public performance" of a copyrighted work). The MongoDB approach post-relicensing is very different.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#364

Post by [deleted] »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #325
api wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a good chance Google wouldn't exist without it.

Not necessarily. Remember, the dot com boom happened before Linux was even a serious contender as a server OS; back then Sun Microsystems was king. Google was founded in '98 and the expense of Sun hardware might have slowed Google's profitability slightly but not enough to matter. We might be talking about the Google-Sun duopoly today instead of the Wintel duopoly today had Linux not existed.

[deleted]

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#365

Post by chx »

ofrzeta wrote: post #347
chx wrote: post #46

> They have already had an alarming degree of success at this through the institution of "Codes of Conduct" on many projects. This has led to the expulsion of productive contributors for un-PCness; it's not just a problem in theory. Talk to me. Seriously, you can not talk about this topic without talking to me because you are talking about me anyways. (And no, ESR never reached out to me.) I have been, by any measure…

It's quite interesting to read the last paragraph on that page that lists your offenses. "We are now looking forward to Linus Torvalds to be shown the door from the Linux project. He has long steered it abusively and has even been identified on mass media publications as a verbally insulting jerk. Him being a white male, the epitome of exclusivity, is just the cherry on top." That sure sounds like someone on a missio…

First, to quote myself:

> Due to repeated Code Of Conduct violations two years ago I was banned from Drupal. This story is known and frankly, not worth a damn discussing it again. It’s only a background.

Second, let me state this extremely clearly and forcefully: it was better for the community and at the end of the day, for myself, to ban me at the end of 2016. It is absolutely pointless and a fruitless waste of time trying to dissect the specifics leading up to that (especially for people who were not part of the community and can't remember how it was -- and frankly, why should anyone remember? Almost all of this is 5+ years ago.). And despite it gave me an opportunity to grow as a person, it is still a wound that hurts prying into so I respectfully ask not to.

and

> We are now looking forward to Linus Torvalds to be shown the door from the Linux project

This was a joke. Nonetheless, Linus was seen industry wide as a jerk (again check https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/blog/2018/a-case-study-in... ) and a few months after that blog post, Linus stepped away for a month and a CoC was established -- how effective that all was, well, https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/13/1892 and for the consequences of such behavior see https://lwn.net/ml/linux-fsdevel/20200217001153.GE10776@drea...

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#366

Post by thaneross »

Lazare wrote: post #220
core-questions wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but nothing about this message strikes me as someone who's acting in good faith So you don't know who ESR is, and you're going to act like the man who has put his entire life into this effort as though he's not "acting in good faith". Wow. If anything, I'd question whether everyone else on the list even knows what 'good faith' is, as they voluntarily proceed to censor themselves.

I know exactly who ESR is, have read his blog off and on over the years, and agree with him on many political points. However, that's still a ridiculous email, and inappropriate for any context where grownups are trying to have a serious conversation about adult matters. First off, it's unprofessional. But even beyond that, the email is either intended to persuade through facts and reasoned argument, or bully though…

It seems to me much of what is considered "professional" is the result of corporations trying to control employee behaviour to avoid liability. I hope we can do better than that.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#367

Post by kazinator »

tsimionescu wrote: post #266
kazinator wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it would look like: an army of docile microserfs beavering away for free to make FOSS work better for Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Oracle, IBM, ... and the odd government who wants a crypto backdoor or two.

As opposed to the current open-source movement, which mostly consists of microserfs beavering away for a salary to make FOSS work better for all of the above? Let's face it, when the biggest contributor to the Linux kernel is Microsoft, the open source movement has very little to do with RMS' ideals.

It is lamentable indeed, and this infiltrated, subverted movement now wants to purge itself of the old guard, who are not good for business.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#368

Post by kazinator »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #339
kazinator wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1998, Linux was reliable and performant. It just hadn't made inroads into big corporations to give it pointy-haired-boss cred.

In 1998, Linux was still behind SunOS/Solaris in maturity and even if it had been even, Intel x86 hardware wasn't remotely on par with what Sun machines could do.

Speaking of Sun machines, in 1997, I was running Red Hat 2 Linux on a Sun SparcStation 20 at Nortel.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#369

Post by lmm »

root_axis wrote: post #291
lmm wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The law" is ultimately just a particular form of social pressure, there's nothing magic about it. If someone is forced into bankruptcy because a twitter campaign got them fired, that's practically the same consequence as being forced into bankruptcy because a court imposed a large fine.

> "The law" is ultimately just a particular form of social pressure, there's nothing magic about it. This is wrong. The "magic" (i.e. the thing that distinguishes it from social pressure) is threat of violence or imprisonment from the state if you don't comply with the law. > If someone is forced into bankruptcy because a twitter campaign got them fired, that's practically the same consequence No it isn't. You are em…

> This is wrong. The "magic" (i.e. the thing that distinguishes it from social pressure) is threat of violence or imprisonment from the state if you don't comply with the law.

Again, though, any violence is ultimately going to be carried out by humans for social reasons. While these online outrage mobs are, as yet, nowhere near as powerful as governments, they're already making credible threats of violence, so that's not the clear bright line you seem to think it is.

> No it isn't. You are employed at-will by your employer, they are free to fire you if they decide they want to do that, but they don't have to. If the business makes the decision to fire you based on public pressure that's their right unless you're making an argument for stricter labor laws (I suspect you aren't).

I am, among other things; at-will employment has always seemed unreasonable to me, as proven by the very existence of protected classes. It's popular to say "asshole isn't a protected class", but as far as I can see the whole rationale for protected classes applies just as strongly to those who have said legal but unpopular things.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#370

Post by lmm »

joshuamorton wrote: post #268
lmm wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no problem with an individuals choosing not to engage based on their own experience. The problem with cancel culture is that we are encouraged to treat people as "cancelled" based on hearsay.

You're under no obligation to do anything. Individuals are simply exercising their own right not to engage based on their own experience. From other comments, you seem to be drawing a distinction between "social pressure" and "individual choices". Can you explain when one becomes the other?

I don't think there's a clear bright line, any more than there's a clear bright line between being avoiding individuals you dislike and discrimination. That doesn't mean the distinction doesn't exist.

If one shopkeeper won't serve you, they're exercising their own rights and you can take your business elsewhere. But if every shopkeeper won't serve you, you're probably being discriminated against. I don't presume to draw the line precisely, but we recognise the difference.

Post reply on HN