I am biased (I've dealt with both ESR and RMS, and had a much more personable time with the former), but I think this is one of the better things ESR has written, and it nails all of my major issues with RMS (almost: I know it gets made fun of a lot but I really find his personal hygiene utterly contemptible).
Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters
101–110 of 168 posts
Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters
#102Mmm... generally speaking, I'm an ESR fan, but I think he's a bit wrong (and a bit right here. What I mean is, yes, RMS almost certainly is a fanatic. I doubt RMS himself would disagree with that characterization (although I don't know him and have never asked him; so it's just a hunch). But, the question is, is RMS harmful to the F/OSS culture (to the extent that one can talk about any sort of homogeneous "F/OSS cul…
The root issue isn't his fanaticism, but the manner in which he chooses to articulate it. He is so dogmatic about even the most inane minutae, that he turns much of his presentation into a self-satire (if it was not for the fact that his presentation style is so dull and pedantic...which it is. As public speakers go, I have never been wowed by him; even Bruce Perens, who is by all accounts the Emo Phillips of FOSS, does a better job).
Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters
#103"The problem with it is the same problem with messianic religions in general; for people who are not flipped into true-believer mode by any given one, it will come off as at best creepy and insular, at worst nutty and potentially dangerous (and this remains true even for people attached to a different messianic religion)." I fit into neither of the caricatures of either a 'true believer' or someone scared of RMS. I s…
"it ensures that it stays open and that improvements are given back"
Actually, this phrase can be understood in two ways:
1. I want to ensure that the software is improved and the improvements are shared. 2. I want to ensure that the if the software is improved, then improvements are given back. If it's not happening, I prefer it not to be improved or used.
The difference between these two are the difference between OSS and FSF. I think the latter doesn't have better moral claim at improving the world than the former, since it bundles positive environmental change (making better code available for more people) with control over other people's behavior (I won't allow you to benefit from the change unless you act as I like). It's like one person giving to charities with no preconditions and another giving only to charities that support his political views. Both approaches are valid, but the latter doesn't have a base to feel morally superior to the former.
Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I dislike about the RMS position is that it seems to consider tinkering, and perhaps geek culture in general, as inherently good and goals in their own right. I take a more utilitarian view: tinkering is good insofar we benefit from the results. I disagree; his position, as I perceive it, is that having the right to tinker is inherently good, not so much tinkering itself. Much like many of us consider Free Speec…
Sure. The right to tinker is required for actual tinkering, and a right that's never exercised is pointless. Regardless, I don't consider the right to tinker an end in its self. The pleasure of tinkering is utterly unimportant compared with the good that a tinkerers work can bring into the world. As for freedom of speech, I think the analogy is flawed. The technology equivalent of speech is invention, and the freedom…
Sure. The right to tinker is required for actual tinkering, and a right that's never exercised is pointless. Regardless, I don't consider the right to tinker an end in its self. The pleasure of tinkering is utterly unimportant compared with the good that a tinkerers work can bring into the world.
But who said anything about the pleasure of tinkering? I don't think that was ever RMS' position.
As for freedom of speech, I think the analogy is flawed. The technology equivalent of speech is invention, and the freedom to invent doesn't require anything like the GPL. The freedom to tinker is more like the freedom to copyedit somebody else's work. And hey, I'm for it! Remix culture is great stuff. But it's not in the same league as freedom of speech.
That was specifically about X vs having the right to do X; I didn't meant to make a broad comparison between them. Subjects in analogies aren't supposed to map 1:1 in everything.
When it comes right down to it, though, I don't consider freedom of speech an end in its self either. The value of free speech is the sort of society it produces, not the speech its self. I favour limits to speech when the effect of that speech is not a net good to society. Now, those situations are few and far between, but they do exist. Yelling "fire" and all that; our legal system has a long and nuanced tradition of weighing the issue in various situations.
But "fire" is an exception mostly because Free Speech is supposed to protect political speech and we can say in a mostly objectively way that "fire" doesn't fit.
But what about political speeches that are arguably not a net good to society, like e.g. calls to pointless (in your opinion) wars? Should they be banned? If not, why not, and aren't you contradicting yourself?
The point is that dogma and fanaticism are counterproductive, whatever your goals are. The FSF is certainly not alone in this.
Another word might be idealism.
Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters
#105RMS is what he is because, what he is. You can't change such people, you won't be able to. And they won't change, And they must not change. If people like him, don't live like he does- Its impossible to take on entities like Microsoft and Apple single handedly. Although you can argue that ideas from Free software were there ahead and during RMS's times. You can never debate that he gave it a sense of cause, activism…
So many fallacies in one post.
1. You conflate RMS being supremely talented programmer with his political strategy. ESR criticized the latter and never doubted - but actually emphasized - the former.
2. Anybody who actually read ESR article knows that RMS was never criticized for his ethnic origin, faith, belief or way of life - only for his political strategy and manner of achieving this goal.
3. Advocating violence? Care to give any proof of that? This goes so far that I actually checked the profile to see maybe this is just an anon trolling going on here. Such accusation needs serious proof.
4. Ad hominem attacks on ESR don't add anything to your argument as they do not defend RMS in any way (even if ESR were nobody, his argument still could be valid on merits) - and they are also completely false.
5. One does not any special qualification to comment on anything. One needs only to make sense and be able to build a solid argument. At which you seem to be failing now, since your argument seems to sum up to "RMS is great, ESR is nobody" and a bunch of factually incorrect statements. Such argument in no way can be persuasive to defend RMS's political strategy and rhetoric which ESR is criticizing.
Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some areas where open source software is the norm: 1) Web servers 2) compilers for UNIX and embedded application development 3) ISP infrastructure I am sure there are plenty of others. My business is trying to bring LedgerSMB to this area regarding mid-range accounting and ERP. Open source can be effectively monatized in more ways than proprietary software. As LedgerSMB 1.4 comes along we'll be shifting from consulti…
Not coincidentally, those are also areas where there's basically no longer any profit to be made. No one makes money selling web servers or compilers for Unix, because it's not possible to compete on price with "free". The businesses that make money from open source typically do so by selling something else on top. Google doesn't sell open source. They sell services. Red Hat doesn't sell open source. They sell suppor…
Well, here's the approach my business is taking:
1) You can bill up-front for major features development. If someone wants a major feature they can may for it. This reduces the risk of software development because much more of the development is being paid for up front. However the revenue doesn't scale and it's subject to boom/bust problems. This being said it's a great strategy to mitigate financial risk in product development.
2) You can find areas where #1 doesn't work and come up with some sort of customer agreement that does scale. The nice thing is that if that area really doesn't work (updates to payroll for example) for reasons inherent here, then you won't have someone else release something like it fully on an open source model and have to compete with free.
So the way I look at it is that I get some things for free (financing for development), my customers get some things for free(software, upgrades on main packages), and this then creates a market for services I can charge more for because the overall package is less expensive.
ERP is huge business but the thing about it is that going with an open source approach brings benefits to smaller businesses that are currently reserved for huge businesses. A multi-pronged approach to revenue here (consulting, subscriptions, support contracts), allows you to take advantage of network effects between these things, cut risk, and still maintain general scalability of revenues.
If others want to do this with LedgerSMB I would generally advise against competing with core, long-term members of the community. You are more likely to succeed if you carve out a niche for yourself in an area that's not being done or is underdeveloped (MRP would be a good example with LedgerSMB).
Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
No doubt you feel the same way about Rick Santorum.
Santorum is a true believer. There's a difference between a leader who drinks the kool-aid, and a leader who mixes the kool-aid. Kool-aid drinkers by definition cannot set the agenda.
As John Medaille put it Santorum preaches to the choir but drives the congregation out of the church.
Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
ESR doesn't strike me as particularly fanatical from what I know of him. Are you thinking of something in particular?
Have you read much of his writing style, or any of his disputes with others? They seem to always end up in hyperbolic, very personal polemics, like this one. Look up his encounters over the years with Bruce Perens, or RMS several times, or anyone ESR considers a "left-liberal". Also, climate scientists are malevolent frauds, in his view, Barack Obama is the worst president and anyone who can't see that is intellectua…
This blog post seemed pretty levelheaded to me.
I think in general people can be levelheaded thinkers in one domain and dogmatic in another. So maybe ESR is dogmatic about other things, but this doesn't seem to be one of them from my perspective.
Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters
#109RMS is not a fanatic. People portray him as a fanatic. Is Gandhi a fanatic? But, it would be easy to portray him as a fanatic, as an enemy to corporations. We need more people like RMS.
Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I dislike about the RMS position is that it seems to consider tinkering, and perhaps geek culture in general, as inherently good and goals in their own right. I take a more utilitarian view: tinkering is good insofar we benefit from the results. I disagree; his position, as I perceive it, is that having the right to tinker is inherently good, not so much tinkering itself. Much like many of us consider Free Speec…
Sure. The right to tinker is required for actual tinkering, and a right that's never exercised is pointless. Regardless, I don't consider the right to tinker an end in its self. The pleasure of tinkering is utterly unimportant compared with the good that a tinkerers work can bring into the world. As for freedom of speech, I think the analogy is flawed. The technology equivalent of speech is invention, and the freedom…
The value of free speech is the sort of society it produces, not the speech its self.
With great respect, I urge you to think this kind of thing through very, very carefully. Consider freedom in the general sense, such as freedom to vote. Many post-colonial countries have freer citizens but worse economies. If freedom is useful only inasmuch as it is a means to some other practical end, we could say that these countries would be better off with colonial masters running them.
America threw off colonialism and prospered, but it is the exception. Freedom often has costs, ask anyone who has chosen to start a company instead of taking a job with BigCo. Some people, myself included, consider freedom a worthwhile thing whether it makes us rich or healthy or happy or not.