“In any relationship between two or more entities, the “small” issues usually are the big issues or at least they evovle into big issues. Several of these type of public engagements a month, every month, for several months will result in some harm to the psyche of the community and lesser confidence by the commercial interests who will deem them as a form of instability or unpredictability of the open source model.” Read the editorial here by Taurayi Chitaukire.
Open Source On the Slippery Slope of Zealotry
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Hi
I think everyone can find zealots but Free software is both a development methodology and idealogy. No wonder politics and zealots are involved
We have Mac and Windows zealots too. so its not newsworthy
Jess
For just about everything that has ever been created or thought of, especially when it comes to religion and politics. There are those who believe in the extreme positions and reject all other observations and those who just shake their head while watching them argue endlessly 🙂
In this case, extremes would be those who support the GPL blindly and the other who support only proprietary software.
….free and open source software would be where it is today if it weren’t for this zealotry. What else motivates the several million dedicated people to pour hours upon hours of time and energy into various projects for no reward other than the conviction that by doing so, one is doing the world good? Zealotry and f/oss software will go hand in hand as long as idealistic gratification remains the primary reward for participation and activity in the development of this body of software.
I find that the definition of zealotry needs to be correctly understood. For a long time those who use OSS are considered geeks and other such stigma that attaches to the so called word is not true!
We proudly say OSS is better mainly because it IS better and we can’t see why on earth people will still use backwards, unabled machines. To be more to the point, its the closed source software like M$ and the people who follow m$ that are too blinded that instead of agreeing that the world really isn’t flat but in fact round.
I for one am sick and tired with the same boring rhetoric being spouted over and over agian against OSS when we do the same all of a sudden we are the l33tists only because we do not rationalize the same crap that they are willing to shove down their own throats!
There is a reason millions say OSS is good while the major majority can’t stand closed source software like M$!
“We proudly say OSS is better mainly because it IS better and we can’t see why on earth people will still usebackwards, unabled machines.”
Your use of a computer must be quite limited. “Backwards, unabled machines”…. right.
“There is a reason millions say OSS is good while the major majority can’t stand closed source software like M$!”
Where did you get this idea?
there is a closed source zealot.
Just look at numerous posts on this site for a perfect example. Look at Paul Thuroutt (spelling?) and his winsupersite for major zealotry.
I’ve never understood closed source zealouts. What are they defending…. 99.9% of them don’t own a closed software package. It just makes no sense to me, there is no reason that opening YOUR OWN CODE can hurt people.
So yea, zealouts are there in any group. I think there are probably anti-chocolate zealouts (God rest their poor unfulfilled souls).
Jess, Dave, Darius right on all of you.
Dave what you say is simply the nature of being human it seams. Unless everyone has the same possition, the will be someone at each end of the spectrum of thoughts. It’s also interesting to not that those who leave the argument even those from the most extreme stand point, when they get away from the issue for a while and seam to look back at things they seam to mello. Politics is great to see this. Look at most retired Republicans, once they are out of politics they seam to mello massively and become more agreeable, I suppose the same is true for Democrates, but non come to mind off hand. I think that if there is something to debate it just fuels things more. Soon as people see it as a argument they go into overdrive, when it’s just a passive thought people are more sensable. This is where people needing to just mello comes in. But you can never get the argument back in the bag. There is probably to many things out there that will tear OSS apart.
This is why there are forks. In the end such problems do get resolved. The middle ground of sensible people just moves on and the zelots stay behind bickering. Over time the middle group has moved on and the old issue are gone, and this new group has split. People just ignoring the fringes and moving on tends to win given a long enough time frame. I think this shows in some projects, there is some part of them that moved on, this is the part with reason. If you find your ideas not happening or falling behind, well guess why?
-=Solaris.M.K.A=- , I sure hope that was sarcasm, otherwise you just proved peoples point. If you are the model of the OSS mindset it is completely doomed.
Darius, your point one the ass-measure.app is right on, course you are good at being right on. I think you provided a good definition. I must say at times the zelots are right, but typical people catch on real quick to them being right. And thus they tend to leave the zelot niche quickly. If your humping an idea though and no one is biting except for biting back at you, then you are probably a zelot and need to do some re-think.
A very large part of the zealotry we read on these topics is due to the medium. Anonymous online communication is fertile ground for strong and sometimes irrational outbursts. Heck, even non-anonymous online communications. When you don’t have to be face to face with someone the tendency is to say things you never would, in your own living room.
Online zealots have been around since the earliest days of USENET. We just used to call them grammar-fascists, topic police, and loons. We even have news zealots, who claim to be all-knowing when determining what is “news worthy.” In essence a zealot is someone we all try to ignore, so that we can have an interesting conversation about the topic at hand.
This article is about one thing and one thing only: The author doesn’t get the entirety of what open means. The author claims to support OSS, so let’s assume that is true. But then the author goes on to link to a debate on an apparently OSS project, where a software author (not the author of the article) chose to write his own app, rather than reuse existing code. The author of this article labels this debate as “bickering,” then goes on to state:
“Several of these type of public engagements a month, every month, for several months will result in some harm to the psyche of the community and lesser confidence by the commercial interests who will deem them as a form of instability or unpredictability of the open source model.”
I stopped reading the article after this point. Here’s why:
In OSS projects, much is discussed openly, whether it be how something should be implemented, or whether or not a piece of code can be cleaned up further, etc & so on. So many of these types of discussions are public. We can look at the kernel archives going back for 10 years, or the GNU mailing lists going back to 1984. There has ALWAYS been this type of debate, bickering or whatever you wish to call it, yet Big Business & even governments are all over OSS, IN SPITE OF THIS VERY “BICKERING” WHICH HAS BEEN SINCE THE BEGINNING! So explain to me again how this “bickering” results in lesser confidence by commercial interests again?
The author may support OSS, but completely misses the entire point of an OPEN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, which allows the entire process of code creation to be viewed, warts and all. This article has nothing to do with zealotry, rather, is only about the author’s fear of an open development process, where all is discussed and shown.
Oh come, so James Gosling creating yet another RSSReader. Maybe he did it to show some ideas and concepts? Maybe he is showing that Java can start quickly? The point is that his RSSReader application is just a means to an end. He is NOT trying to change the world with his RSSReader.
Now about zealotry and the MAC… I hope you do realize that OSX is growing… I just bought one and like it quite a bit. OSX is winning people because it is a UNIX that is desktop friendly. Because of the zealotry Mac’s did not die, and that is very important to remember.
When I’m looking for an app, say one that’ll measure the distance between my ass cheeks, if there is both an open and closed source offering, I will pick the best one out of the two. If you can’t understand this, then you are a zealot. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with being a zealot, though I’ll know never to take your seriously because your opinion is always one-sided.
I don’t agree at all. The way things work in a free market economy is to give your money to companies you want to support. The converse is also true. If you dislike a comapany’s policies or ethics then you don’t support that company. I will sacrifice a little time, effort, and even quality if I can choose not to support something I don’t believe in. The government isn’t going to do anything about Microsoft’s behaviour so the only people left than can affect them are the users. That’s where all their money comes from. I said goodbye to MS a long time ago and I won’t buy another MS product because of the actions of the corporation. That is a perfectly legitimate reason.
“When I’m looking for an app, say one that’ll measure the distance between my ass cheeks, if there is both an open and closed source offering, I will pick the best one out of the two. If you can’t understand this, then you are a zealot.”
You mean you pick the best one out of the two based on your priorities, which may not be the same priorities that go into my choice of apps.
Working with computers is supposed to be a white collar job, however it isn’t at all. It’s equivalent to a plumber who gets his hands dirty because of all of the heavy commercialism in the computer industry. There are many moral hang ups. It’s an industry heavily centred around marketing.
This is such a non topic I feel ashamed for even posting.
I’m very sorry.
“by anonymous:
There are many moral hang ups. It’s an industry heavily centred around marketing.”
followed by loads of easily lead people, thinking that cost equals value.
so many people believe in you get what you pay for and throwing money at a problem is the solution.
Why would you need to pay for software that measured your arse cheeks. Maybe the comercial one would provide a better gui frontend which animates your arse while its measuring it, some people would swear the animation is vital.
from dictionary.com
“zealot
One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; especially, one who is overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan.”
“zeal
Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance. See Synonyms at passion.”
There is nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. But the problem comes when people make stuff up. When they dont provide proof and just assume, and stand with their assumptions, the problems arise when people evaluate with a biased opinion. Its heavy bias thats a problem. The problem is blindly believing.
The worst is where people are hired to spread rubbish, or people come in purposefully with crap to wind up others. If your gonna say something prove it, have back up. Just dont blindly spurt out stuff without fully understanding about it. and dont assume. Assumption is the mother of all f*** ups.
Theres no problems with arguing, after all all discussion in development matters no matter how heated. It will at worst produce loads of different methodologies and forks of a particular application, eventually the best of the bunch will be used.
Even the linux kernel at its inception had flaming between torvalds and tanenbaum. Both believing in their set of methodologies, monolothic/micro-kernel.
Tanenbaum kept minix closed and minix has never grown above what it was intended for (teaching), linus released linux (the kernel) and it is an unstoppable beast now.
Also at the time micro kernels just weren’t ready, are they ready now its still questionable. (exokernels, l4 etc)
The thing is only people that follow the development processes will see the flaming and the arguments. Its good imho because it shows passion and active thinking. Even in closed source application development i would bet there is a lot of heated debate. In the open source world its all open you can follow it if you want, add in your 2 pence worth.
At the end of the day, if so called zealotry was such a problem linux wouldnt be so widely accepted by big commercial entities.
I think everyone can find zealots but Free software is both a development methodology and idealogy. No wonder politics and zealots are involved
You got GPL As in communism
You got PD as in anarchy
you got BSD as in liberal
That’s plenty more than one ideology
> What else motivates the several million dedicated
> people to pour hours upon hours of time and energy
> into various projects for no reward other than the
> conviction that by doing so, one is doing the world
> good?
I know people who release software under GPL because “it’s the default”, or because they don’t want to think about legalese. I know people who release under GPL because they think it’s great – a position that I’ve frequently seen dissolve into “what have I done” after a bit of calm reasoning (“calm”, by definition, means: offline…).
I know people who release software under GPL because they know what it means for their project, and feel comfortable with it.
That last position is about the only one I can calmly accept.
As for zealots… I released software under GPL, PD, and under proprietary license. I’ve been flamed for both the PD and the proprietary release, heavily, and both times by GPL zealots. No-one from the PD camp flamed me for releasing proprietary or GPL, no-one from proprietary camp flamed me for releasing PD or GPL.
Because I took care to chose a sensible license appropriate for the software in question (instead of just unthinkingly defaulting to GPL), and the only people who seem to have a fundamental problem with that are GPL evangelists.
Rest your case, accept that other people make other decisions, and continue to do what this is about – providing better software to the customer. Everything else is zealotry, and I have to agree with the author of the article – if anything has hurt the OSS community, it’s the zealotry as in the definition courteously brought to us by dopey above.
Its unfortunate that you did not read the article in its entirety because if you did you would find that your comment is totally off mark. I hate to copy peice for piece parts of the artcile you did not read but here’s one
<strong>
The fact that James Gosling is an expert software engineer does not automatically make him an expert in every solution domain. The purpose of this hacking exercise is to reinforce (mentally) his (abstract) knowledge of said application’s functionality. Why? Maybe he is currently working on something bigger (or at least work-related) for which he is going to need first hand knowledge to do it, or at least lead the developers that will be doing the actual coding.
</strong>
… and this last part…
<strong>
3. Intellectual/Theoretical vs. Manual/Practical Exercise
And just to reinforce another point I made in passing, abstract learning – be it in the form of observation, reading, or even studying interfaces and developing against them – is different and has different effects when compared to “on the job” or “hands on” approaches, which tend to form stronger associations in the brain between participant entities.
Whether you are creating from scratch, modifying existant code, reverse engineering or even reusing, hacking will allow you to gain better knowledge and/or understanding of the system at hand and its targetted domain.
Beware… Thy Self-Annihilation
So, in the end, result is we have a non-issue, turned into an issue, which is actually a non-issue. When entities like Microsoft see this type of entropic disposition manifesting itself in the OSS/FS community they go to bed stress-free and without a worry in the world for they know that we are “killing ourselves softly” (from the Fugees song “Killing Me Softly”).
They can focus their reources on other things. However, an organized community will course them to divert resources from their core business in order to bring about what we seem to be so willingly to do ourselves.
</strong>
I think people do not get my point because they are thinking from the point of view a trained/shooled programmer which Golsing obviously is. Try imagine on the first day of your intro. to programming class your instructor says <u><strong>”we are going to start by extending the Darwin kernel because good programmers never rewrite when reusability is an available and viable option”[/i]</strong>
no intro. to loops, iterations, conditions, etc. because these are all concepts we are familiar with from every day life.
i hope this better conveys the full gist of the article.
1. never did i say reuse is wrong – in fact it is preferrable and encouraged.
2. never did i say oss/fs is wrong
3. i am not afraid open source. in fact i have a broder appreciation for it than most people as i believe in duality (spacetime vs. space or time, you are always going both left and right vs. left or right, addition/subtraction, etc…) and in systems theory which gives you generic arguments for open and closed systems devoid of context e.g. software as we are discussing now
y market they seem to have. Third, i think some movement called FLOSS took that place instead as #1 competitor which is a point i could simply prove by Microsoft seeing it as their #1 enemy. Forth, especially on the server market, Apple is a non-issue too. On the desktop we have the situation where it isn’t the bifurcation as some put it, but i still think there are 2 big players.
Imagine yourself a world without people with extreme opinions. That would be a static world with only one static status quo, right? Now, with Microsoft’s way there ain’t much of that. hence, some -some strongly, others less strong- oppose their zealotic, proprietary way and their zealotic puppets (Darl McBride, Rob Enderle, Laura DiDio, their other “analyst” puppets, their own “analysis” on “TCO”). What else do you expect? “Yes, amen”? Especially when it is perceived as far off you’ll see (valid) criticism.
In this case, extremism is all a reaction to certain happenings. For some (Linus, for example) it is the market dominance of one company and ofcourse luckily about fun (imagine you don’t enjoy your day job!). He wants to see diversity in the market. Is that zealotry? For others (RMS, for example) the problem lies in proprietary software. Is that zealotry? You can expect people to adopt their logic and behaviour according to this, and it is up to you to understand their logic, reasoning and why they behave like that. Start doing that, instead of whining about some extremists. It isn’t gonna bring you futher, it develops exactly nada, and it isn’t gonna take (your hatred against (and/or) a certain form of) extremism away.What is a “zealot” anyway? In huge conflicts (also defined as “healthy competition” by some people), there are extreme people too.
For example, there are moslim fundementalists, and there are christian fundementalists. Which of these group are right is one thing we cannot proof because either religions are not able to proof their belief. Hence, belief. If you want to view it from an “objective” point of view (or rather NPOV) then you have to view both sides. One thing newbies learn on Wikipedia. So you have to understand moslims, christians, and both the extreme sides in order to understand the conflict. If you do not understand moslims’ view the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq as a war on the islam i think you haven’t investigated the moslim side of the story, for example, since it is obviously perceived as such by some part of the population of islam countries (their governments moderatily not, because those have other interests which start with the letters Dollar and ends with a lot of $-es.). Which, if you didn’t, is a mistake. Ofcourse it is also possible you came to another conclusion after your investigation; this is merely an example of i perceived the problem.
Now that i’ve spoken about NPOV, which the author partly did by stating the fallacy of authority (“The fact that James Gosling is an expert software engineer does not automatically make him an expert in every solution domain.”) i’ll continue talking about why i think this phenomenom called “zealotry” (i rather speak about fundementalism) is actually created. As i’ve explained earlier in any huge conflict there are “zealots” on all sides. But where does it start? There is no conflict in which both sides are equal. There is always an underdog and an upperdog. With a lot between that. I think in the earlier example we know who the most strong group is, and money-wise Microsoft is perhaps more powerful too. Since this world is a world of judgements, the facts in this case don’t actually matter, it matters which group is _perceived_ by the majority as underdog and you can expect people to think black vs white as in the fallacy of bifurcation (it all starts with defining individuals as groups). When i correlate that classic David vs. Goliath with the “follower/sheep” and “creator/inventor” logic, i get to a theory where i wonder who has more power over what. The followers is a huge (conservative (the abstract definition; NOT the practical one)) crowd, and they buy more from the huge leader because of a number of fallacies as well as because of the remain the status quo. Those who fare against this status quo, are perceived by the status quo as.. guess what… “zealots”, or fundementalists. Hence, you don’t hear much about Christian fundementalists (or zealots from the main group) because that’s perceived as normal by you and your social peers. Well, it’s just as extremist as your random group of moslim fundi’s or your randomgroup of christi fundi’s.
One other thing to note is that you must believe in the good intention of people in order to view the conflict (or “war”) as objective. The intense wish of RMS for a different where software is a common, Free good is a society what he thinks is good for society. The global questions here are for example: “Has he thought about it well?” and “How is his logic?” The intense wish of Bill Gates to make users (“customers”) pay for software because they don’t contribute to software according to him is what he thinks is good gor society. The same questions applies. I sincerely believe both people see their behaviour as Ultimately Good but their _conclusions_ or _behaviour_ is not what matters. What metters is their logic!
That said, i think times have changed for Apple. They’re bypassed and were kept alive partly by Microsoft software too. However, Microsoft doesn’t wish to do the same with FLOSS. I don’t think Apple MacOSX is a huge competitor to MS Windows. First of all for their price, second for their niche market they market they seem to have. Third, i think some movement called FLOSS took that place instead as #1 competitor which is a point i could simply prove by Microsoft seeing it as their #1 enemy. Forth, especially on the server market, Apple is a non-issue too. On the desktop we have the situation where it isn’t the bifurcation as some put it, but i still think there are 2 big players.
Imagine yourself a world without people with extreme opinions. That would be a static world with only one static status quo, right? Now, with Microsoft’s way there ain’t much of that. hence, some -some strongly, others less strong- oppose their zealotic, proprietary way and their zealotic puppets (Darl McBride, Rob Enderle, Laura DiDio, their other “analyst” puppets, their own “analysis” on “TCO”). What else do you expect? “Yes, amen”? Especially when it is perceived as far off you’ll see (valid) criticism.
In this case, extremism is all a reaction to certain happenings. For some (Linus, for example) it is the market dominance of one company and ofcourse luckily about fun (imagine you don’t enjoy your day job!). He wants to see diversity in the market. Is that zealotry? For others (RMS, for example) the problem lies in proprietary software. Is that zealotry? You can expect people to adopt their logic and behaviour according to this, and it is up to you to understand their logic, reasoning and why they behave like that. Start doing that, instead of whining about some extremists. It isn’t gonna bring you futher, it develops exactly nada, and it isn’t gonna take (your hatred against (and/or) a certain form of) extremism away.
And frankly, while i believe i understand Gates’ overal reasoning and believe he thinks it is ultimately Good, i don’t understand his logic that he wants to users (“customers”) to pay for software in the current way it is developed: proprietary, by one company, and for a license only instead of a more direct implementation where the People pay the development directly.
I find that the term Zealot has negative meaning. I also think that merely supporting Open Source and Linux is definitely not negative. So, we have a few things that people cannot yet do with Linux, that they can in Windows. So what? 2 different O/S’s and 2 different philosophies.
Just because I hate windows and ms, does not make me a zealot. I have hated both since the introduction of win 3.1 – because I formed the opinion back then that both were going in the wrong direction. Yet I had to put up with it until now. I tried Linux and I like very much the use of tools and the way you can string them together to do very useful stuff in a command shell. I also use the K Gui and very little Gnome.
The point is that there is a viable choice of OS for the desktop and I think Linux is the equal of windows any day of the week. Another excellent thing is Morphix game DVD. Yes have 501 games on a LIVE-DVD, but don’t screw up the OS already on the computer – games that run from the DVD are a smart use of Linux.
I now use Linux instead of windows by choice. Does this make me a zealot? My dictionary says Zealot is an enthusiast, that means someone happy with their choice, so call me what you will……
The superior form of argument in the open source world is coding, patching and documenting. Doing it more and more is what reinforces this movement.
Everyone has differing opinions, idealogies, preferences etc.. The difference with zealots is that they have not learned *how* to disagree. It’s not “if” you disagree, it’s “how” you disagree. It’s imperiative that they learn, because, well, life is *all* about relating to others. A little Zen never hurts. Tyranny is for infants.
hen I’m looking for an app, say one that’ll measure the distance between my ass cheeks, if there is both an open and closed source offering, I will pick the best one out of the two. If you can’t understand this, then you are a zealot.
I can see your point, sort of.
When I’m at work (on my employer’s dime), I will use the Best Tool For The Job ™. For instance, there are two particular advanced text editors: Programmers Notepad and Crimson Editor. Very similar. PN is opensource, CE is not. While at work, when time is of the essence, I use CE more often then not (however, PN has some more intuitive regex searching features. Again, BTFTJ). But, when I’m at home, on my time, I use PN. Why? Because I believe in OSS, and I want to help make it (in this case, PN) better.
Also, the best program for a task is often way too expensive. My company is not going to pay for a licence of Photoshop for me. However, I can download win-gimp for nothing. Sure, its a little harder to use, but for the minor amount of image editing I need to do, it works just fine. When you take cost into account, GIMP is the BTFTJ, for me.
If everyone had your attitude, the second-place player would never get any better. There would only be on OS, one file manager, one graphics editor, one text editor, one IDE, etc, etc, etc.
Thank goodness everone’s not like you. For that matter, thank goodness everyone’s not like me.
.
I think being passionate about something is admirable. If someone really believes in something and they feel the need to spend time and energy on it then they should do. If they want to tell the world about how wonderful this thing is then they have every right to do so, in most Western countries anyway.
The problem arises when they close their minds to other alternatives. When they dismiss or disrespect anything that is different from what they believe in or when they look down upon those that have a different view to them. It’s all good being pro-something, what bothers me is when they’re anti-something else.
Take for example the Windows vs Linux debate. Why do pro-[Windows/Linux] people need to bash [Linux/Windows] every opportunity they can. If you truly believe in your operating system then just talk about what is good about it rather than slating the alternatives. Being negative all the time just puts other people off, and is not conducive to an intelligent debate.
Just my £0.02
I agree, the word “zealot” has gotten a negative meaning. More often than not the word is used as an insult. Just like “elitist”.
Abraxas
I don’t agree at all. The way things work in a free market economy is to give your money to companies you want to support. The converse is also true. If you dislike a comapany’s policies or ethics then you don’t support that company. I will sacrifice a little time, effort, and even quality if I can choose not to support something I don’t believe in. The government isn’t going to do anything about Microsoft’s behaviour so the only people left than can affect them are the users. That’s where all their money comes from. I said goodbye to MS a long time ago and I won’t buy another MS product because of the actions of the corporation. That is a perfectly legitimate reason.
Why do you automatically associate closed source with Microsoft? Do they not make closed source software on any other platforms? There’s a difference between giving your money to Microsoft than to some shareware author who is just trying to make an honest buck.
PS – Since you don’t seem to believe in supporting companies with a lapse of ethics, I assume you don’t own any CDs or DVDs that weren’t bought used, do you? What about cable and phone?
I can understand Abraxas. It really doesn’t matter how ethical a closed source software company is, if that company only writes for the Win32 platform, you cannot use that software out of ethical consideration. Even today it is still nearly impossible to run Win32 software without having to license and use MS Windows. Choosing to use a Win32 application means supporting Microsoft with money and marketshare.
Making the comparison with the Media Industry is not quite fair. There is no retailing alternative to the Media Industry. You either buy their goods or you have no alternative access to content. (No, copyright infringement is not a solution). In the case of Microsoft it is feasible to refrain from their products or MS oriented products from third parties, because there is a more agreeable alternative.
Why dislike Microsoft? There can be numerous reasons, but I view them as one of the largest threats to freedom of information and therefore against the right to equal access to education and self-improvement. My software aquiring policies could be quite similar to those of Abraxas…
I am tired of the hate filled messages.
I am tired of the ad hominem arguments.
I am am tired of the bickering.
I am tired of people in denial.
I am tired of the proselytization.
I am realling interested in operating systems and languages and such, but this whole open vs closed debate leaves me empty.
“Its unfortunate that you did not read the article in its entirety because if you did you would find that your comment is totally off mark.”
My comment is spot on.
“1. never did i say reuse is wrong – in fact it is preferrable and encouraged.
2. never did i say oss/fs is wrong.
3. i am not afraid open source. ”
These are not the issues and pertain in no way to my comment.
The article links to a debate, which you label bickering, because a software author wrote his own app, without reusing existing code. You then claim such bickering & debate, if it continues, will cause commercial interests to have less interest in OSS.
Your article fails to take into account that such bickering and debate has been with OSS from the beginning, and has not decreased commercial interest in OSS one bit. To the contrary, in spite of such open debate, commercial uptake of OSS is on the rise, which completely invalidates the point you wish to make.
Please note, no one has stated you are afraid of OSS, rather my comment stated that you do not understand the open development process, wherein decisions and debates are handled publically, for all to see. If you did understand the open development process, then you would know that from the very beginning of OSS, such debates have occurred publically and have not decreased commercial interest in OSS. So reality directly contradicts what you claim in this example in your article.
This is not about whether Gosling should or should not have reused existing code. You missed the point entirely, just as you did in the article. You are arguing that public & open debates surrounding software development are a bad thing. I am arguing such public and open debate have been with OSS from day one and rather than being bad, is healthy. Look at it this way: Say you are married and your partner does something you do not like. How do you handle it? Do you mention it and bring it up for discussion or do you keep your mouth shut so that the issue is never resolved? If you keep quiet about it then the issue can never resolved and your partner will continue to do the thing you do not like. If you bring it up for public discussion, then resolution of the conflict suddenly becomes a possibility. In OSS such conflicts are brought out into the open and resolved. This is not a bad thing and in no way harms the psyche of the community. Open and public debate is healthy and moves the community forward, not to mention produces better code.
Now what is your point here? Why even bring up the word “zealotry,” when this issue has nothing at all to do with zealotry at all, rather, is about your own discomfort with public and open debate?
r_a_trip
It really doesn’t matter how ethical a closed source software company is, if that company only writes for the Win32 platform, you cannot use that software out of ethical consideration.
So what about closed source software NOT on the Win32 platform? Or those Win32 apps that will run in Wine?
Making the comparison with the Media Industry is not quite fair. There is no retailing alternative to the Media Industry. You either buy their goods or you have no alternative access to content.
Actually, you can buy used CDs from secondspin.com, pawn shops, and various other places, as well as DVDs. Plus, there are ‘alternative’ record labels out there in which to buy music from. Of course, you’ll never find any music from Britney Spears there, but other ‘non big-name’ artists are available. Same thing goes with indie films. In fact, I’d say this draws a close comparison to open source where you won’t find many of the big name apps, but you can often times find apps that’ll do approximately the same thing, and sometimes even better apps.
But even if it were not the case where there were no alternative sources for music or movies, why is it then ok to support corporate terrorists, even though you can’t get the goods anywhere else? I mean, it’s not like music or movies is food – you don’t *HAVE* to have it. Trying to justify not supporting an evil corporation while you continue to give money hand over first to another is a bit hypocritical, IMHO. The way I see it, if you’re going to be an idealist, either shit or get off the pot.
Why dislike Microsoft? There can be numerous reasons, but I view them as one of the largest threats to freedom of information and therefore against the right to equal access to education and self-improvement. My software aquiring policies could be quite similar to those of Abraxas.
I pretty much agree with you, but I have a question for all the open source advocates:
Some of you say that if an open source app was not quite up to par with the closed source counterpart, you would be willing to sacrifice some time and effort for your ideals. But, my question is, how bad does an open source app have to suck before you concede that it’s just not worth it? And even if it sucked on the same level as a whitehouse intern, would you still claim it was better than the clearly technically superior closed source counterpart simply because it was open source? If so, that in my opinion is the definition of zealotry.
If you guys would really rather use open source software simply because of the Freedom aspect no matter what the level of functionality was, then I could sit down and write you an equivalent to every single closed source app on the market. All I’d have to do is make the app display a message box that says “You’re a schmuck” and based on your ideals, you’d have to use it, unless a better open source app were available.
“But, my question is, how bad does an open source app have to suck before you concede that it’s just not worth it?”
Damn good question, but I can’t answer specifically. I can only give examples. I think OpenOffice is a very good program. It does everything I need a word processor to do. Although it runs fast once it is opened, I am a type A personality and want my apps to appear on my screen instantly when started. OpenOffice doesn’t do this. Additionally, I am in KDE phase right now and stock OpenOffice is not integrated with KDE. So I now use Koffice, which does appear instantly when started and integrates with KDE. (And as of v1.3 uses OpenOffice document filters anyway.)
Another example is 3ddesktop, which is a 3D desktop switching program. It works well enough when I first log into KDE. However, if I have to log out, then log back in, this app doesn’t work properly anymore without me jumping through some minor hoops. The minor hoops are not worth the extra eye candy so this app is no longer installed on my machine.
There have been many GNU/OSS apps I have installed over the years that either didn’t work correctly or took more time to configure than I liked. Those are all apps that I no longer use. I can’t remember which apps they were, given that they were installed for such short periods of time on my machine.
Some apps are worth fighting with the configuration though, like squid. I installed squid once a month for about 4 months in a row. I could never get it setup correctly during this time, so would get frustrated, then remove it from my machine. Once a month I would try again. Finally, I somehow got the configuration correct and have been using it for years now to block web ads, as well as make web pages appear to load almost instantaneously. For me, apps like squid are well worth the trouble in the end. It works without fail once the configuration is correct.
Aim is another example. I can install WINE, then install AIM for windows and it runs perfectly. Everything will work including file transfers and entering AOL chat rooms. However, I very rarely have a need for file transfers and never go into AOL chat rooms. Additionally, AIM for windows does not integrate at all with KDE. So instead I use either kopete or gaim, depending on which desktop phase I am in at the time.
“would you still claim it was better than the clearly technically superior closed source counterpart simply because it was open source?”
Define “technically superior.” This is all about one’s priorities. There are those who only wish to use free software as defined by the FSF. If this is a priority then it will obviously affect the choice of app. I, however, would never label those who make choices based on their priorities, rather than my priorities, as zealots. To each his own.
Zealots, there. Fanboys, blah, blah.
If this site did not thrive on controversy and using loaded words,they would have actually pointed out that the article we were asked to read was a response to this very reasoned and reasonable article written by JohnMunsch:
http://www.johnmunsch.com/archives/2004_03.html#000367
Stop wasting your time with name-calling and go out and learn something. You will be glad you did.
Do you mention it and bring it up for discussion or do you keep your mouth shut so that the issue is never resolved? If you keep quiet about it then the issue can never resolved and your partner will continue to do the thing you do not like. If you bring it up for public discussion, then resolution of the conflict suddenly becomes a possibility.
No one’s arguing against “public discussion”. I mean, for real man…”Public discussion” and “resolution” does not equal zealotry. People do it all the time. Of course it’s healthy.
But the zealot is the one who _doesn’t_ care for public discussion and resolution of issues. Zealots are only concerned with validation, not discussion.
If you’re here to defend public discussion and resolution then you are not defending zealotry.
“would you still claim it was better than the clearly technically superior closed source counterpart simply because it was open source?”
Define “technically superior.” This is all about one’s priorities. There are those who only wish to use free software as defined by the FSF. If this is a priority then it will obviously affect the choice of app. I, however, would never label those who make choices based on their priorities, rather than my priorities, as zealots. To each his own.
Alright, let me be real specific here – let’s go back to my example of a program that will measure the distance between your ass cheeks. Let’s say there is both a closed source app that does this and an open source alternative. Now, let’s set up a senario where the open source version is still alpha quality and only measures in inches. Now, unless you have a very abnormally sized asscrack, you’re going to need something that measures in milimeters or something smaller. Now, let’s say the closed source app does this, plus can convert to and from every single measurement known to man, is super fast, and rock solid. In contrast, not only does the open source version only measure in inches, but it’s very slow and crashes constantly. Now, we’ll also say that the closed source version is free as in beer, so price is not a factor, plus it is built with a platform-neutral toolkit, so it runs on Windows, Linux, OSX, and pretty much any flavor of Unix.
On top of all of this, it turns out that you absolutely *need* the added functionality in the closed source version, either because it is required in order to do your job or because of some other need, either real or perceived?
In this case, I would call the closed source app technically superior. Now, if you were to stand on your soap box and scream that people should use the open source app and that closed source is bad, evil, unethical, etc, then I would label you a zealot.
(PS – After typing all this, I realized that you could technically use a seperate app that could convert inches to whatever, but let’s say for the sake of argument that this wasn’t possible.)
…really the fault of the increasingly annoying and bad habit of blogging about *everything*. From a fart which came out the wrong way lastnight to the latest proof-of-concept hackery. If this guy’s RRS reader was never mentioned in his personal diary, this whole thing would have stayed the non-issue it really is. Same goes for most of the issues which are fought out in blogs nowadays (remember the whole thing between Pennington and De Icaza’s blogs? Same bullshit which is watched by the whole world). It’s all bullshit, but because the publication medium facilitates ego-trips (not to mention the fact that people actually incourage this by jumping on it like hawks) so easily we’re also stuck with commentaries like this on top of those damn blogs. What a world, and it’s sad that people have nothing better to do.
Then I can’t answer your question proplerly, given that I have never run across an app in your hypothetical situation where I absolutely needed that functionality. I am a desktop user having basic needs, none of which require certain functionality. As in the example of office software, I only need what is good enough.
“If you’re here to defend public discussion and resolution then you are not defending zealotry.”
The author claims having to answer the concerns of a so-called zealot in a public debate will lessen commercial interest in OSS software. History proves this is not the case. Turn it around. When Steve Ballmer came out and labelled GPL software a cancer, did that turn commercial interests away from Microsoft products? No. Commercial interests knew that for Ballmer to make such a zealous statement, only meant Ballmer had an agenda. I say the same is true with OSS. Business is about returning greater profit. They pay no attention to what statements zealots make. IBM still holds many patents, while at the same time pushing Linux & GNU. IBM could care less if a zealot states all software should be free. It doesn’t make IBM open source all of their patents and it doesn’t make IBM stop pushing Linux & GNU. Therefore, the claim the author makes in the article falls flat on its face.
The author starts with the premise “…as a scientist, I try to extend objectivity to other aspects of my life…” – in other words “you must accept my opinions as Truth”. Just what field of science has qualified him to judge this issue?
This one had me rolling on the floor: “The logic here is that reuse is not only the signs of good programmer…” Dude, philosophy 101: logic is the way you get from your assumptions to your conclusion. In other words, you have confused “logic” for “assumption”. While that is the hallmark of popular controversial scientists (Cyril Burt and J. Philippe Rushton), it is certainly not the hallmark of a good one!
Oh, and I must ask you this: is that Aristolean logic or Classical logic?!?!? Do you even know the difference? The same set of assumptions can lead to completely different conclusions depending upon which system you choose. Same for the assumptions. For example, the previously mentioned scientists who played with their assumptions until it matched the conclusions they were after.
This article was good for a chuckle or 2.
stray beat me to it. Thanx anywayz.
No one’s arguing against “public discussion”. I mean, for real man…”Public discussion” and “resolution” does not equal zealotry. People do it all the time. Of course it’s healthy.
But the zealot is the one who _doesn’t_ care for public discussion and resolution of issues. Zealots are only concerned with validation, not discussion.
If you’re here to defend public discussion and resolution then you are not defending zealotry.
I could not agree more. A better analogy is that of curly braces in c++. is debating this in anyway going to improve the language, programs, FL/OSS, closed source, etc. I doubt it. However if one discussed the use of interfaces vs. multiple inheritance, structs vs. classes (when no private vars are required), etc, then that would be .
stray talked about resolution. that is important but i would like to add to it and say constructive criticism is what its mainly about. to me the argument here was worded in such a way that it made it seem taboo or a waste to start from scratch vs. reuse.
if you look at the comments in the author’s blog, a majority are asking the simple question “are you saying that one is no longer permitted to start from scratch?” some even took a more extreme (but valid in my opinion) stance and asked “are you saying that i cannot do what i want?”
i do not think for one moment that any of these people are dumb. like me i think they felt that when one makes a statement along the lines of “you are not permitted to start from scratch when reuse is an option” it is an equally valid (and strategic even) to counter with a seemingly dumb or uber literal response just to emphasize to the author how outragous his statement is.
the author has just posted a comment stating that i am focusing on sub-arguments in his whole post instead of the main argunment which was that Sun as whole does not get the OSS thing. if that was so i apologise. however, i still insist that his wording is the one that influenced that interpretation rather than my own personal issues otherwise i would have been the only one that came away with that opinion of what he was saying.
in closing, this is a never ending debate that can only be solved by one piece of missing info. Nmaely, what was the purpose/motive/drive for the hack. Without us knowing this we can not really say whether Gosling was indeed being wasteful and unproductive, or it was simply a learning exercise.
“I could not agree more. A better analogy is that of curly braces in c++. is debating this in anyway going to improve the language, programs, FL/OSS, closed source, etc. I doubt it. However if one discussed the use of interfaces vs. multiple inheritance, structs vs. classes (when no private vars are required), etc, then that would be . ”
Then by all means, stick with closed source development, where all such discussions are held behind closed doors, away from the public, rather than in the open.
The author starts with the premise “…as a scientist, I try to extend objectivity to other aspects of my life…” – in other words “you must accept my opinions as Truth”. Just what field of science has qualified him to judge this issue?
You left out the part about how I recognize zealots within the Mac community (of which I am a part of) AND how I can sympathise with PC users who complain about the zealotry of the Mac community. Although I wouldn’t take this as the “Gold Standard” definition of the word objective I would have liked to think that looking at a situation that has two sides from both perspectives could be taken as a manifestation of the idea of ojectivity. Foolish me.
http://WWW.ASK.COM. Type in “define try” and see the definition. The only comment I have to this is that to some of us who regard ourselves as meagre mortals life is Kata (the martial arts practice of repeatedly executing various combinations of moves with the aim of having them “hard coded” in such a way that presented with a situation you do not have to think of the sequence in which you will attack or defend, your body instinctively responds contextually). Repeatedly doing math problems is Kata.
Take this and apply it OBJECTIVELY to your above statement and see if you can see what I am talking about. As for what qualifies me to be a scientist here goes: science is a process and one who understands the process and can apply it to a given context is a scientist. A few things to note:
1. applying the thought/process pattern to a given problemset is different from actually getting results (although this is the intended objective). not getting results does not make you less of a scientist.
2. the process, which can be reduced to input/process/output + verification/validation, is not attached to any particular formal body of knowledge (natural/social science). you can find primitive (or modern traditionalists) or isolated communities (human or otherwise) that utilise similar processes and methods despite no knowledge of physics, biology, economics and the like.
3. Einstein spent a decent ammount of time trying to disprove some of the ideas about sub-atomic physics that he thought presented a model of the universe that was contrary to his religious beliefs. Now tell me, who is more of a scientist? One who sticks to The Scientific Method till death, a faux ami (false friend) who studies science just so they can aquire suffice knowledge to discredit it or show it is subordinate to other transendent methods, or one who embraces it but falters in the face of other forces (religion, emotions, money, etc.)
I have to go so I shall respond to the other points later. Fortunately I have I sense of humor…
I think what you must realize is that for many people you would consider “zealots” being open source is one of the advantages we use in determining what is “best.” Different people assign different valuations to the freeness of the software, but you can’t call someone a zealot based on how they prioritize these things.
I think what you must realize is that for many people you would consider “zealots” being open source is one of the advantages we use in determining what is “best.” Different people assign different valuations to the freeness of the software, but you can’t call someone a zealot based on how they prioritize these things.
It’s not really how they prioritize things. Afterall, different strokes for different folks. It’s when they demand that other people prioritize things the same way they do, and try to pawn off on people apps that truly suck as ‘the xyz killer’, where xyz is the name of some closed-source program.
If they made their software secure and stable and priced it affordably then there probably wouldn’t be any need for GNU software. But since they were unwilling to do this, not unable (how many billions do they have in the bank?), they must be replaced by something that is willing to provide the quality we need. And what ideology is that? Pure unadulterated interest in the software and the technology with little concern for the typical profit motive. We are motivated by the science not the economics.
Now I ask you do you honestly find something wrong with that ideology when you compare it with Microsoft’s, which is just capitalism plain and simple? Why?
Microsoft would not be releasing source code or improving security and stability in earnest like they are if it weren’t for the competition that that open source ideology creates.
Personally I feel like we all deserve better than Microsoft. We deserve better than capitalism. We’ve got the technology, so let’s use it to get all this work done and forget about frivilous things like profits and job titles and the class system. Freedom is getting closer every day. If we could agree on one ideology above all others, one day I believe we will achieve this freedom we have all been searching for. But what ideology should we agree on? Science and Technology. Because nothing else caused the industrial revolution. Nothing else was responsible for the computer and information revolution. And nothing else will provide better for our future.
Just think about it.
You have my vote. However, before we attain this freedom, we shall encounter significant obstacles primarily in the form of “Trusted” Computing. This has the ability to take away the few liberties that DMCA letf behind.
One way to counter this is to come up with solid new OSS licenses that include retaliatory language for those that do not follow the license and its “spirit” e.g. SCO would be in trouble now if that were the case now.
Also, there is need for a complete OSS stack from Kernel to Notepad-like software in which one cannot “POLLUTE” the environment with proprietary entities.
The question isn’t IF you can bicker about this or that amongst yourselves within the community.
The question IS if the bickering will be viewed in good light by those ignorant of the motivation or purpose of the discussion.
Does anyone disagree?
If so, think about the 2000 election, where people screamed things like “voter fraud” and “election stealing” or even “the system is broken and we should change everything”
It’s four years later.
Has anyone seen ANY legistlation in Congress or a state government to significantly change the way we elect presidents?
No. The reason is serious people recognize the chaotic insanity being tossed around and chose to filter it out.
Are there legitimate issues to work on?
Yes.
Will it be addressed in a serious manner?
Not while people are shouting.
F/OSS is no different.
I wish you all the best.
…see above thread…
OSS is eroding the traditional ability of software developers to be employed by traditional software development companies. As more code is moved into OSS projects, each for-profit, whether open or closed source, has higher barriers to profitability.
If you are a software engineer contributing to OSS, it’s economically the same result as some executive outsourcing your position gradually…
I’m not saying this is bad, because economically more people benefit from FREE (as in beer) software than the economic loss of your job. But economically FS and OSS raise the barrier to profitability for each product and for each company. This switch is especially disruptive to software engineers in their mid-career, who, unfortunately, are the ones who are trying to pay for the college education of the next generation of software engineers…
– Andrew
When people put extremly highly weighted values on things that are very abstract in nature and have little evidence behind them, I tend to view them as zealots.
“I think it’s good” or “I like this idea” should not lead one to “everyone else should also see it my way”.
This is the sign of zealotry. You can see it all over the place, not just with OSS. Religion is the oldest form of zealotry of course. It’s also present in politics.
If one feels the need to convice everyone they meet that their philosophy is correct when they have no evidence of that fact, then they are a zealot. As for OSS, there may be *some* evidence that OSS has advantages over other development models in *particular* cases, but it is far from clear that OSS is the best model for *everything* or even *most* things.
I recently saw a talk by B. Kernighan and I think he put it best when presented with a question that was more touting open source than a question. His response was something like this (not a word for word quote, I don’t have borg memory) “I think OSS is important and interesting, but it’s a very young area of research.”
I, like much of opensource “zealots”, use free (as freedom, open) software because of idealism. Whenever it is possible I prefer spend time and money to learn how to make a definitive solution using free software instead of using the same (many times more) money buying a proprietary license of a software.
I spend more money buying linux boxes and books about linux, PHP, Perl, Postgresql, etc than if I bought a Windows XP home license. But with Windows and closed applications and languages I would never learned so much.
When I am doing “marketing”about linux and other free softwares to other people I am contributing to making them more popular and, as consequence, I am gaining in long future because some of them can contribute with code, labor and ideas to improve these softwares. Then I can use these improved versions for free.
If some free software is discontinuated I or someone can take the source code and make new versions. I have freedom to read the code, modify, contribute and use indefinively for free.
The “price” is to learn and it is better than pay to someone learn for me. This is the reason why developing countries like Brazil, China and India prefer to spend on free software than give dollars to american companies.
I don’t understand why someone is Apple or Microsoft zealot. Even if you are a satisfied consumer of some of their products you cannot use this to defend the bad pratices of Microsoft or the expensive prices for underpowered and proprietary hardware of Apple. What these guys gain doing that ?
And let me add that I think framing the debate of OSS Vs. Microsoft is really bogus. I think throwing Microsoft into every FS/OSS argument/discussion is to ignore every other software company in existance. Really.
I really do think that OSS is becoming a shining beacon of zealotry and idealogy.
– Andrew
“I really do think that OSS is becoming a shining beacon of zealotry and idealogy.”
That’s a sterotype. Mostly when you talk about zealots of various OSes (some closed source as well), you’re talking about kids and young people. Some old timers, but mostly young people. It would be completely unfair to label the developers “zealots” in general because of some of the more hostile comments found on some bulletin boards. This very discussion is proof in itself. If all you know of OSS is what you read at this site, no doubt you will come away with an ugly impression of it.
“It’s not really how they prioritize things. Afterall, different strokes for different folks. It’s when they demand that other people prioritize things the same way they do, and try to pawn off on people apps that truly suck as ‘the xyz killer’, where xyz is the name of some closed-source program.”
If you’re saying people shouldn’t foist apps on each other, you’re absolutely right. OSS shouldn’t be foisted on anyone. The whole point is choice, not to cram it down someone’s throat. But, particularly with the kids (although some old timers too), sometimes enthusiasm goes overboard and becomes something else, something negative.