| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
The New Barbarians (Forbes)
The New Barbarians (Forbes)
Posted Sep 2, 2006 22:20 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510)In reply to: The New Barbarians (Forbes) by Max.Hyre
Parent article: The New Barbarians (Forbes)
I have to agree with the description "confused". I explained some things about Linux to Dan in email while he was writing this, but can't say I agree with his perceptions, and would not have expected him to write what he did.
Bruce
(Log in to post comments)
The New Barbarians (Forbes)
Posted Sep 3, 2006 3:15 UTC (Sun) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
It's always a mistake to engage with Lyons, or with anybody from Forbes. Steve Forbes is a first-class hands-on wacko, and nothing goes into the magazine unless it's thoroughly saturated with his spittle. On the upside, reading Forbes is a good way to discover what's not true but that the rich-and-powerful wackos wish was, or at least would like the wannabes to believe.
The Problem With Dan Lyons' Article
Posted Sep 3, 2006 8:06 UTC (Sun) by warmcat1 (guest, #31975) [Link]
''...Extremists say they don't care. "People can go run another operating system," says Bruce Perens, a free-software advocate who supports Stallman.
Perens says if Torvalds doesn't adopt GPLv3, extremists will create a new operating system using a different kernel. ...''
I don't think replicating the ecosystem around a GPL2-only Linux is going to be that easy, Hurd shows it hasn't been so far even before GPL3. Although Ubuntu shows it is possible to make a Debian-based distro beginning with U with the same license.
Maybe the best plan is for RMS to send out GPL3 exactly how he likes it and see if he gets any takers over a longer time horizon, that is how the GPL2 came in common use after all. Articles like this one want conflict, struggle, imminent drama but it might all come down again to the rest of us catching up with RMS over time. Maybe I'll even understand by then how one can use the language of increasing freedom by adding restrictions to the license.
''finally decide they're tired of his bullying and buffoonery and cut him loose.''
Cut him loose from where? He operates outside any sponsor. Individuals can listen and make their own mind up on what he has to say case by case, a nice compensation for not being owned by a corporation.
The Problem With Dan Lyons' Article
Posted Sep 4, 2006 8:56 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Maybe the best plan is for RMS to send out GPL3 exactly how he likes it and see if he gets any takers over a longer time horizon, that is how the GPL2 came in common use after all.
GPLv2 "came in common use" because FSF licensed huge body of code under GPLv2: bash (and readline!), binutils, coreutils(it was few separate packages back then), emacs, gcc, etc. Today we have a lot of things licensed "under GPLv2 only" (Linux kernel, Qt, etc) so it's not easy to see if/when users will switch to GPLv3...
The Problem With Dan Lyons' Article
Posted Sep 4, 2006 15:28 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
"" Today we have a lot of things licensed "under GPLv2 only" (Linux kernel, Qt, etc) so it's not easy to see if/when users will switch to GPLv3... ""
Users, i mean general users, couldnt care less !. Most people just want things to work and dont care how they work or why they can have trouble. The rational of the inherent complexity of IT solutions is something most users will discard to the responsability a 3th party... or under the rug! They(general users) simply dont read licenses and dont care in a dumb hyperpragmatic attitude. Ok, professional data centers do care, but there is a huge gap between them and the massive general approach, making "easyer" but inferior technical solutions so powerful!..
It is this gap that "Open source" as a *software engineers movement*, has to cross to get to the masses. It could be hard considering the "Open Source" circumstances, but when engineers start to address "users" as general, and not as someone in a familiar zone, they will be positioned to lead with strategic concerted efforts... otherwise it will continue to be so easy to FUD them and their propositions.
The Problem With Dan Lyons' Article
Posted Sep 4, 2006 19:07 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]
Users, i mean general users, couldnt care less !. Most people just want things to work and dont care how they work or why they can have trouble. The rational of the inherent complexity of IT solutions is something most users will discard to the responsability a 3th party... or under the rug! They(general users) simply dont read licenses and dont care in a dumb hyperpragmatic attitude. Ok, professional data centers do care, but there is a huge gap between them and the massive general approach, making "easyer" but inferior technical solutions so powerful!..
Right. But things can't just work when the organizations providing such software are sued left and right for licence or patent violations. The 3rd party has to be able to survive.
True, current laws are creating a complete mess, and show that they were created for the printing press technology. But it will take a few decades (at the very least) for open source and similar ideas elsewhere to become powerful enough to dictate their replacements.
It is this gap that "Open source" as a *software engineers movement*, has to cross to get to the masses. It could be hard considering the "Open Source" circumstances, but when engineers start to address "users" as general, and not as someone in a familiar zone, they will be positioned to lead with strategic concerted efforts... otherwise it will continue to be so easy to FUD them and their propositions.
This is no engineering problem, it is a legal gap to be crossed. Just look at the current crop of anti-OSS FUD.
The New Barbarians (Forbes)
Posted Sep 5, 2006 18:41 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]
Where's the win in talking to a reporter who has an obvious agenda?