| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
quick reviewquick reviewPosted Feb 13, 2003 10:10 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544)Parent article: The Art of Unix Programming
This book continues ESRs tradition of self-promotion and undermining the The subject matter is worthy of a book but I think it is very unkind to From reading this book, one would think that RMS was a hippy with silly Anyone who has read RMS's essays will know that he is a practical person. Often, ESR will compliment the person/thing that is about to get a new Ciaran O'Riordan
(Log in to post comments)
quick review Posted Feb 13, 2003 12:12 UTC (Thu) by mwilck (guest, #1966) [Link] Yes. ESR's attempts to disqualify RMS and the FSF are pathetic, although other parts of the book seem to be well worth reading. ESR fails to notice that many people have started seeing his "open source" movement as hype, whereas "free software" stands as a value no matter how many people believe in it. ESR writes: For most hackers and almost all non-hackers, "Free software because it works better" easily trumped "Free software because all software should be free". Problem: the first slogan could be proven wrong. Actually, there are strong indications that "the Kathedral and te Bazaar" told us how we wished the world to be rather than it actually was. Now if people came to believe again that propietary software works better? By ESR's definition, all the pragmatists should leave the free sofware camp as quickly as they entered. Let's hope there'll be some idealists left to continue.
quick review Posted Feb 13, 2003 17:49 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Now if people came to believe again that propietary software works better? By ESR's definition, all the pragmatists should leave the free sofware camp as quickly as they entered. Let's hope there'll be some idealists left to continue.Like in the case of Bitkeeper? It is certainly the case that there are particular proprietary programs that work better than particular free programs, and the pragmatists do tend to use the proprietary ones. Of course, in many cases, the freedom of the code is a major pragmatic reason to prefer it: if you know that you will need to change things or that you will need to use the software beyond when it will be supported, no proprietary program could possibly work. The point of Free Software is to be useful to the users, with the idea that this requires the freedoms that the GPL gives the user. If the freedoms the GPL gives the user weren't actually useful, I'd except even RMS to abandon the ideal. If, for example, no two compilers were the same and no two programmers could understand each other's code, the GPL wouldn't be interesting. The split isn't really between the pragmatists and the idealists, it's between the people who know from experience that free software is better and the people who only know from being told. The pragmatists and idealists would both abandon their positions if convinced that the software wasn't actually better; they differ only in how bad they think proprietary software is and how hard it would be to convince them. The non-technical end users have no use for the source themselves, and must therefore be convinced that there is a use to them to the source being available to those who what it; the open source message seems more effective than the free software message at this.
quick review Posted Feb 14, 2003 13:08 UTC (Fri) by mwilck (guest, #1966) [Link] It depends what you mean by "better". Of course, the GPL freedoms add values and usefulness to everyone (you can share the program legally with others, you can improve it to suit your needs, you can have independent parties scrutinize it).It is not clear to me to which extent ESR is not talking about these added values when he says "free software is better". I suspect a to very little extent - he means "technically better", nothing but, in the sense in which Bitkeeper is better than CVS and Microsoft Word better than Kword. This is what many non-technical users will probably also do, especially because it hardly matters to them if copying stuff is legal or not. I think it is possible to convey the benefits of free software to non-technical users, too. A democratic constitution gives its citizens a lot of rights many of them never exert - nevertheless it seems to be clear that people still appreciate that they have these rights. Just repeating the message "free software is technically better" without talking about the additional freedoms is dangerous. You may convince more people in the short run, but you risk to loose them when they come to believe that proprietary software is technically superior.
quick review Posted Feb 16, 2003 0:25 UTC (Sun) by socket (guest, #43) [Link] You make some good points. I've often found myself describing the difference between Raymond and Stallman in terms of pragmatism vs. ideology, knowing that it oversimplifies. I like your explanation of the more subtle points.To address a part of your comment: The non-technical end users have no use for the source themselves, and must therefore be convinced that there is a use to them to the source being available to those who what it; the open source message seems more effective than the free software message at this. I disagree that end users have no use for source. My girlfriend's started using Linux recently, and doesn't do programming (yet. Perhaps she might, at some point, but it doesn't much matter.) When things go wrong on her Windows partition, there's not much I can do - I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with Windows anymore, and often all you can really do is uninstall and reinstall and hope the bug goes away. When something goes wrong on her Linux system, it's much easier to track down and fix. I haven't had to dig into source code yet to fix anything on her system (though I have on my own) but I'm much happier simply having that option. And she's much happier knowing that it can probably be fixed. I'm certainly not the best programmer, though. But if I can't fix it, I can find someone more competent who can. A large benefit of running free software is that developers are more open to listening to their users, when it's a polite, informed question or bug report. Until more companies read The Cluetrain Manifesto and take it to heart, commercial software will be at a disadvantage because of the iron gate between developers and users. Even if nobody I know can fix it, given the source code, the relationship between users and developers is more often such that bug reports often do some good, and are likely to get fixed faster than in commercial software - I find that free software developers typically have an attachment to their project and their code that you don't find in commercial software; it's something they made because they need it, and care about it, and it's rare to have the same kind of interest in an employer's project than one you work on of your own incentive. I think pragmatism and idealism are both necessary elements to the quality and success of free software. The fact is, people care about it. I tend to refer to "free software" more often than "open source," but I generally mean the same thing by it. I think it's good that both Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman exist, because different people will gravitate toward different ideologies. The companies may have come to free software via Eric Raymond's publicization, and many would like to not fully embrace Stallman's strong stance on what that should mean, but on the whole, I'm happier that these companies are more free than they used to be. I may philosophically feel closer to Stallman, but I'd rather have partially free than non-free.
quick review Posted Feb 16, 2003 8:36 UTC (Sun) by Odinson (guest, #1402) [Link] In the spirit of KISS...The source is important because _SOMEBODY_ can fix it. I fix my own car/bike beacuse I know how. Most geeks go to a mechanic.
quick review Posted Feb 20, 2003 19:37 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] THIS PRAGMATISM VS IDEALISM IS JUST CRAP!!They are the same! Idealism without pragmatism would be like in a perpetual dream, and pragmatism without idealism could not happen, because it would not have a conceptual blueprint, a point of start...I think that in a common sense (not philosofical) people tend to be just like that, "balanced". But is also true that the "idealism" or concept of "pure" materialism tend to view itself as without any form of idealism, silly ins't it?... SO, JUST LET US TRY TO CUT THE CRAP, IT ONLY REFLECTS THE ANGER IN US, AND IT WONT SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS...
|
|
||||||||||||