Open Source Everywhere (Wired) [LWN.net]

Wired examines the open source model as it spreads from software into other industries. "A decade ago, Michael Eisen slogged through swamps in Costa Rica studying the mating behavior of frogs. That's what biologists did, he figured - and if he had to fight off a few leeches along the way, so be it. Now he's all about coding, crafting blocks of genetic data and churning them through his computer. "It's a great time to be a biologist," says Eisen, a computational scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "Origin of Species is the best thing ever written in biology. But you just wish Darwin knew about genomics." Yet if biology is in a renaissance, there are still relics of a medieval age." (Thanks to Andrew Willson)

to post comments

Open Source Everywhere (Wired)

Posted Oct 17, 2003 20:41 UTC (Fri) by odie (guest, #738) [Link] (5 responses)

If I were slightly more paranoid, I would say Wired has a revisionist agenda. Not only do they painstakingly refuse to use the term free software, even when discussing aspects of freedom. Of course, they do focus mostly on the business side of things, but not exclusively.

They also very strongly imply that Linus Torvalds more or less created the concept of open source (which in their definition includes free software) with Linux, building upon the factual errors in their last article on the subject, the much-discussed "Leader of The Free World"-interview.

No wonder Stallman refused to appear in these guys' articles. I wouldn't want them to use my name to leverage this sort of misinformation.

Sadly, I think this is a case where Hanlon's Razor applies: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

If I may present...

Posted Oct 17, 2003 22:45 UTC (Fri) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] (1 responses)

A corollary to Hanlon's Razor, call it Flew's Corollary, if you will. I've found it particularly helpful in understanding the media:

"Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by simple laziness."

If I may present...

Posted Oct 18, 2003 2:38 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

I think I agree with both comments. The journalist is probably ignorant of the complete situation, and laziness prevents him from educating himself.

My solution is to write a mail to such journalists. It's the same with politicians, they're not going to do the research, so you have to do their work for them. It sucks, but when it's important, you do it. The difference between politicians and journalists is that politicians appreciate it when you do their work for them, journalists take offence :)

But there's no other way, so I recommend writing them a mail. When ten people point out similar corrections, they might stop to think about it. If you write factual mails of a decent length, they might end up appreciating the info you've given them.

Why must some always malign

Posted Oct 17, 2003 23:05 UTC (Fri) by ee_man (guest, #14294) [Link] (2 responses)

Have any of you maligners of friendly articles played the game of "telephone operator"? It's a game where small children sit in a circle and one of them starts the game by whispering a statement into the ear of the child to the right. Each child in turn repeats the same statement to the child on the right. Eventually the statement comes full circle and the orginator finds out how much the statement has changed. Have any of you been witness to crime? There was a famous experiment in which a professor staged a shooting in his classroom. The class did not know at the time that the shooting was staged. Afterwards the professor asked the class to state what happened. Not one of the students could accurately recall most of the important details of the event. Have any of you read a history book on World history? In the text was your respective country represented clearly and accurately? I doubt it very much. My point - history, events, statements, and memory are all very malleable in an individual's mind. Each article written about a subject details what an individual has found to be important. If "wired.com" gets some details "wrong" about the historical aspects of Linux or open source it really shouldn't be that important. The important aspect of this article is that "wired.com" has reconized that "open source" is not just about software. It's about science, innovation, research, and as the very beginning of the article points out, life. Open source is humanity. It is how humans develop. It is how civilizations grow. Open source is the sharing of knowledge. Can anyone individual claim that he/she began such a movement? I don't think so. Just because certain individuals "started" the software "open source" movement does not mean that those ideas and ideals began with those individuals. I just would like people to stop pointing out the small discreapancies in an article and look at the larger picture. For those of us in the US the SCO lawsuit is more than just an assault on open source, it's an assault on humanity, on the very essence of the human mind. It seeks to end the creative work began in a few minds and expanded by several thousand minds. I think if I were Linus, Bruce, or Stallman I would be very happy that "wired.com" has posted such an all inclusive article. Just because someone doesn't want to participate doesn't mean they don't approve. The article is positive, upbeat, and does a very good job of removing the idea that "open source" software people are communists out to destroy the corporations and captialism. Why must we malign friends? In doing so we look like a bunch of short-sighted nitpicking morons without a true vision of the future. Thanks for the rant time. ee_man

Why must some always malign

Posted Oct 18, 2003 11:30 UTC (Sat) by odie (guest, #738) [Link] (1 responses)

I work for a government agency which among other things is charged with the task of raising public awareness on environmental issues. This is a very delicate task, as there are very few definite facts to rely on. We are on a regular basis attacked in the media by people who believe we are wrong, or work against economic growth or just general crackpots wasting tax money. These people are part of a healthy debate and not a problem.

It is not entirely uncommon that well-meaning journalist, politicians or commercial entities put out articles or campaigns that are generally pulling in the right direction, but with a couple of subtle, but ill-placed mistakes in areas they haven't thought through properly. These campaigns can often do more harm than good, and are very hard to counter.

The same thing, of course, goes for free software. An article such as this raises many excellent points, but also furthers a few misunderstandings. I could not have sent my earlier comment to the Wired reporter (and perhaps should have used milder terms while posting it here) without looking like a short-sighted nitpicking moron without a true vision of the future.

However, we should be aware of this problem and wary of making the same mistakes ourselves. While Richard Stallman obviously failed miserably in his attempts to set the "Leader of The Free World" article straight, I don't think he was wrong in trying.

sorry for the harshness

Posted Oct 19, 2003 1:36 UTC (Sun) by ee_man (guest, #14294) [Link]

Sorry about the abruptness and rudeness of my previous post. I seem to have wrote it on the bitter edge of a long battle with a cold. At last I've succumbed to the illness and am thinking a bit more slowly and rashly.

I think my main point was that this article is not about software at all. It's about a general feeling of almost an information age Renaissance, if you will. I believe the author was trying to show that many other sectors of the intellectual zone are suffering from creative gout due to the heavy handedness of current business pratice and the laws that support the status quo.

I believe if you re-read the article without the overbearing emphasis on free software the article seems much better. Sorry if I came across too strong. When I go back and read what I wrote, I have to laugh. It seems so petty and reveals that I am guilty of the sort of thing I referred to in my own post.