LWN: Comments on "The Free Software Foundation: 30 years in (Opensource.com)"

executive vs hacker wage

giraffedata — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:01:10 +0000

Is Zemlin really ~5 times better or more effective than a Linux kernel hacker? Or to put it another way, are Zemlin's "contributions" to the Linux ecosystem really ~5 times greater on average than one Linux ecosystem hacker?

That's hard math to do, of course: comparing a number of apples to a number of oranges, so here is one way to approach it: Could 5 additional kernel hackers substitute for Zemlin's position? (I doubt it).

Isolating Zemlin's contribution is like asking how much of the strength of a chain comes from a particular one of its links.

The Free Software Foundation: 30 years in (Opensource.com)

Wol — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:22:45 +0000

American Robber Baron Capitalism at its finest ...

Microsoft set out to destroy the vibrant market in computer software, and succeeded :-( Like far too American businesses over history :-(

Cheers,
Wol

The Free Software Foundation: 30 years in (Opensource.com)

flussence — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:56:47 +0000

I don't think when "The Right to Read" was originally written, anyone could have predicted the sheer insanity of DRM today. Forget books, it's illegal to use a debugger on *tractors* now...

The Free Software Foundation: 30 years in (Opensource.com)

MatejLach — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:04:56 +0000

Yeah, because an idea that makes common sense should never be considered radical. It's both sad and surprising to see how quickly people gave up the ideas that were at the foundation of our industry once the likes of Microsoft came along. Luckily for us, the ideas behind free software are slowly, but surely gaining momentum - let's hope for a better future.

I love this quote...

Wol — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:51:51 +0000

> > It means pretty much what it says, I assume?

> Except that the FSF doesn't represent any sort of political worldview, so saying it's to the left or right doesn't make any sense. The only reason for positing it like this is to imply that the FSF is "to the left" and as such not "pro-business" (unlike, say, some other initiatives who just love business).

And, speaking as a European, I see American Business as being pretty close to the definition of Fascism - "government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations". Personally, I see myself as being on the right, yet I'm strongly in favour of socialism, not only because I believe it's the "right" thing to do, but also because it's cost-effective!

Here in Europe, we can't understand this extreme fear Americans seem to have of Public Health Care. But if you look at the 1st-world health care industry, and plot cost vs value, America falls very firmly on the high-cost/low-value side of the graph (that's not to say Americans don't get good health care, just that what they do get is poor value for money).

Or look at the finance industry - Isn't the current financial crisis (that's being hiccuping its way through the last 20 years) pretty much a direct consequence of the American unhealthy focus on profit? We used to have a strong mutual banking sector - the current financial mess would have been unthinkable before Maggie destroyed it. My verdict on Maggie (I used to be a supporter) is now "she spent pounds in order to save pennies". She was an idealist, blind to the real-world results of her actions - the impact of "the law of unintended consequences".

Unfortunately, in America, "Money Talks". And propaganda finds it pretty easy to drown out science, helped by journalists who don't actually have a clue what they're talking about. And, in order to be successful, pretty much ALL politicians have to be rabble-rousers - if they're not they won't get elected :-(

What can we do about it? Dunno :-(

Cheers,
Wol

The Free Software Foundation: 30 years in (Opensource.com)

nix — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:57:35 +0000

an idea, as radical as users having control over the software they run on their own computers

That's the thing. It wasn't radical, back then. RMS saw the way things were heading and started to campaign against the coming situation when that would be seen as a radical position. He also saw the future beyond that, where attempting to see what this new binary-only stuff would do would also be made illegal.

People laughed at him, because obviously "The Right to Read" was really bad fiction and using debuggers would never be illegal, right?

Then came the DMCA and its ilk...

I love this quote...

pboddie — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:31:35 +0000

I think you've managed, with numerous examples, to illustrate rather well the futility of applying the overly-simplistic "left" and "right" terms to political phenomena. Bacon's "obvious" terms aren't so obvious to most readers, after all.

I love this quote...

rsidd — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:39:48 +0000

There are any number of references to the left in FSF/GNU. The word "copyleft" is itself a winking reference. "The GNU Manifesto" echoes a well-known earlier manifesto from the 19th century. The FSF site uses the word "political" frequently: for example, in the "about" page it says "To use free software is to make a political and ethical choice..." (it doesn't say what sort of politics, but doesn't have to). And since you bring up open source, it compares the free software and open source camps to two political camps. Sorry, a political ideology permeates all of RMS's and the FSF's work. Finally, please note that "left" and "right" are not well-defined labels, and Chirac and Sarkozy in France are regarded as "right" there but would be hard-left in the US, as would be the centre-right Merkel government in Germany, while the conservative Cameron government in the UK pushed through gay marriage. But if you laid out the FSF's philosophy to any American who was not aware of the organisation, and asked them to classify it politically, almost everyone would put it as "hard left" (well to the left of the Democratic party). Jono Bacon was stating the obvious.

I love this quote...

Zack — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:13:57 +0000

> It means pretty much what it says, I assume?

Except that the FSF doesn't represent any sort of political worldview, so saying it's to the left or right doesn't make any sense. The only reason for positing it like this is to imply that the FSF is "to the left" and as such not "pro-business" (unlike, say, some other initiatives who just love business).

It may be so that rms' worldview is pretty much to the left of the spectrum, but that is immaterial. To illustrate:

"OSI and Open Source represent a worldview that is pretty much libertarian, but I believe their passion and conviction helps keep personal computers safe from external threats."

No one in their right mind would take the above blanket statement seriously, and in the same vein no one should take an attempt to peg the FSF politically for self-serving purposes seriously either.

The FSF is pro-business, and even pro-corporation, in the way that their only concern is with ethical software practices, and that's all there is to them being "left" or "right"

Now if this were an honest mistake of conflation, I don't think there'd be any problem. But seeing how it's written by Ubuntu-spyware's main apologist--someone who is familiar with explaining wrongs in righting ways, I have my doubts about it being a honest mistake.

> Or do you just hate Jono Bacon and Ubuntu so much that praise from Bacon for RMS hurts?

On the contrary, I am a fan of Jono Bacon. I think the work he does is valuable. He is the heartbeat of any free software and open source community he happens to be a part of. Sure, Jono can be a little sensational and self-serving, but he is precisely the kind of community manager that is valuable in a movement that encapsulates technology, business, ethics, puppies and culture. And that's exactly why I'm so concerned about this behaviour.

Does that make my stance more palatable? Because I can heap some more praise on top of that if it isn't.

I love this quote...

rsidd — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 05:22:08 +0000

What does "[The FSF] represents a world view that is pretty hard to the left, but I believe its passion and conviction helps to bring people further to the right a little closer to the left too." even mean?
It means pretty much what it says, I assume? Are you looking for some sort of hidden meaning here?

More Jono Bacon quotes:

I am a fan of the FSF. I think the work they do is valuable and I contribute financially to support it too.

There is little doubt in anyone's minds about the value the FSF brings. As John just highlighted, its efforts span not just the creation and licensing of free software, but also recognizing, certifying, and advocating a culture of freedom in technology.

[RMS] has demonstrated an unbelievable level of commitment to his ideas, philosophy, and ethical devotion to freedom in software. While he is sometimes mocked online for his social awkwardness... RMS's perspectives on software and freedom are generally rock-solid.

The FSF represent the ethical heartbeat of much of the free software and open source work that happens across the world.

Sure, RMS can be odd, somewhat hardline, and a little sensational, but he is precisely the kind of leader that is valuable in a movement that encapsulates a mixture of technology, ethics, and culture.
Seriously, where are you and donbarry reading the snark in any of this? Do you disagree with the descriptions of RMS's strange personality and hardline approach? I don't think there is any room for argument that that is what RMS is like and what he has been like for over 30 years. Or do you just hate Jono Bacon and Ubuntu so much that praise from Bacon for RMS hurts?

Wrong year

donbarry — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 03:09:47 +0000

Yes, it was an inadvertent mistype.

I love this quote...

roc — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 23:43:59 +0000

Yeah, maybe not in 2003. Good point.

The Free Software Foundation: 30 years in (Opensource.com)

MatejLach — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:27:06 +0000

I want to take this opportunity to thank RMS specifically for his devoted efforts to introduce more and more people to free software.

I was born nearly a decade after the GNU project was started, but it is what made it possible for me to start programming in a UNIX environment early on and today I've grown so used to it, I cannot imagine I would be where I am today without it and the contributions of thousands.
It is true that a BSD toolchain would probably be a perfectly acceptable solution as far as the software stack itself goes, but the idea of free/libre software would most likely remain largely unrealized, since it takes somebody as devoted as RMS to push an idea, as radical as users having control over the software they run on their own computers, out and having the success he's been having, sticking to his principles even when it would certainly be more practical not to do so.

Thanks RMS and the free software community for their efforts.
Happy 30, FSF.

I love this quote...

davidstrauss — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 17:07:51 +0000

> RMS does not receive a salary from the FSF, thus you can still contribute to the FSF and dislike RMS as a person

I'd disagree there. Supporting the FSF absolutely increases the reach and authority of RMS, regardless of salary considerations. You cannot simply decouple a non-profit from its most prominent founder, president, and figurehead by not paying a salary. It's not like FSF has disowned RMS or that RMS has stopped using the FSF as his vehicle for advocacy.

I don't mean to suggest that you shouldn't support the FSF, but it's naive to think you can do so without supporting RMS.

I love this quote...

Zack — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:39:15 +0000

I think donbarry was not speaking about anything John Sullivan wrote, but about Jono Bacon's interspersed "thoughts". I also agree with him.

Or why bother bringing up rms if you're only going to frame it inside a "cult of the personality?"

Is there anything more to being a "Community manager" than filling out a PR function? Do some of them actually do something useful in the context of a community?

I'm glad the John Sullivan parts were interesting, but the rest was a bit too glib for my tastes.

I love this quote...

ballombe — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:06:45 +0000

> (self-feathering apparatchiks? carpetbaggers? are we back in high-school?)

You were lucky if your fellow students in high-school knew what an apparatchik
and a carpetbagger were. Just saying...

The Free Software Foundation: 30 years in (Opensource.com)

oldtomas — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:14:25 +0000

And (just a bit) off-topic: there are birthday parties around the world.

Happy 30th, FSF! Thank you, you've made the world better!

Wrong year

corbet — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 13:01:03 +0000

Bear in mind that the LF didn't exist in 2003, so I don't know where that number comes from. Ah...probably from this form 990, which is for 2013...

I love this quote...

mlopezibanez — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:34:46 +0000

On the contrary, John Sullivan is a rather excellent voice and face for the free software movement and I think he did a very nice job in putting forward the principles and facts to a wider audience without cringe-worthy behaviour and childish name-calling (self-feathering apparatchiks? carpetbaggers? are we back in high-school?) that only serve to, at best, lead to eye-rolling and, at worst, antagonize the public in general and the people who are mostly on your side (who even contribute financially to your cause without asking anything in return).

It is OK to point to facts (Zemlin's salary) and question the status quo (what is Ubuntu contributing to Debian, what is Whitehurst/LF contributing to the wider Free software movement). Sullivan points out several facts that may be unknown to some people in the open source movement (RMS does not receive a salary from the FSF, thus you can still contribute to the FSF and dislike RMS as a person) and that are in sharp contrast with equivalent positions in other non-profits. This may lead some people to rethink where their contributions are better spent. And he does all this in a calm, non-confrontational manner despite the difficult questions. Brave and excellent job!

I love this quote...

ballombe — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:12:31 +0000

> A good kernel hacker should be able to make at least 150K USD, so the ratio is more like 3 than 5...

In 2003 ?

I love this quote...

rsidd — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 08:04:42 +0000

Did you read the article or did you just skim it looking for Shuttleworth's name?

I love this quote...

roc — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 04:26:27 +0000

A good kernel hacker should be able to make at least 150K USD, so the ratio is more like 3 than 5...

I love this quote...

torquay — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 04:17:04 +0000

self-feathering non-profit apparatchiks like Zemlin (whose LF salary in 2003 was $467,200)

Is Zemlin really ~5 times better or more effective than a Linux kernel hacker? Or to put it another way, are Zemlin's "contributions" to the Linux ecosystem really ~5 times greater on average than one Linux ecosystem hacker?

I love this quote...

donbarry — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 03:47:32 +0000

I love the part of this provided by Mr. Sullivan. I cannot say, however, that it was necessarily wise to indirectly promote the views of the opportunists of the "open source" side, leading with Mr. Bacon himself. Bacon's editorial snark and snide insertions, laced with innuendo about the "utopian" (i.e., principled) stand of the Free Software movement is of a piece with the opinion for hire perspective he offered as community manager of Ubuntu, the endlessly tacking profit-seeking distribution of Debian.

One may certainly disagree with the principles Stallman has chosen for himself (I am very sympathetic to them), but no one can deny that he is in fact entirely devoted, even ascetically so, to them. To place him in the same company as carpetbaggers like Shuttleworth, corporate CEOs like Whitehurst, or self-feathering non-profit apparatchiks like Zemlin (whose LF salary in 2003 was $467,200), is to attempt not only to appropriate Stallman's stature onto these lesser men, but to diminish the important part of what he has stood for, at times almost single-handedly.

I love this quote...

pizza — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:31:51 +0000

"The free software movement has succeeded to the point where laptops, desktops, and servers can run fully free operating systems doing anything users of proprietary systems can do. There are still a few holes, but they'll be closed. The challenge that remains in this area is to cut through the billion dollar marketing budgets and legal regimes working against us to actually get the systems into users hands."