[TriLUG] Gnome foundation results

[Andrew C. Oliver]

>On 28 Nov 2001, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

>> In case you miss the slashdot
>>
>>
>http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announce/2001-November/msg00037.html
>>
>> Looks like the gnome people didn't feel like getting corrected over
>> pedantic semantics and other FSF political baggage.  Looks like the
>> project won't come to a screaming halt after all.  Too bad, so sad.
>> Break out the beer.

>Funny you should mention it. I was just thinking to myself about rms,
>the
>nature of free software, and his "political baggage".

>Here's my feelings: rms is a brilliant technologist. His software
>(namely emacs and gcc) is used by millions and have become the default
>tools of an entire industry. The original emacs (written in TECO for
>ITS)
>was the first editor of it's type- full-screen, modeless, expandable. A
>groundbreaking piece of software. Life without gcc is unthinkable.

To be clear gcc is the work of many.  I don't like emacs (vi user
here).  My point is that RMS is a terrible project leader.  Case in
point the object of the gnu utilities including gcc was to support the
Hurd.  RMS gets sidetracked too easily.  With all of the developers, why
is the principal project of the FSF still pre-alpha for all intents and
purposes after like ten years?  RMS may be a good technologist, might be
brilliant, but he's doesn't really help reach any particular goal.  The
best way he produces something, is by aiming for something completely
different.  Granted some of the most brilliant stuff (antibiotics from
moldy cheese sandwiches, etc), the idea is that if he signs on to lead a
project like gnome, we might end up with a great something it just wont
be a desktop system ;-p 

Next his agenda didn't have much to do with "produce desktop system". 
It was:

"I will use the
position to improve coordination between GNOME and the rest of GNU--in
regard to technical decisions, public relations, and long-term goals."
which translates to him correcting every email on the listing to
Gnu/Linux and other pedantic whining.  To be clear, while I don't really
care for RMS, I do respect his accomplishments, I just wouldn't like to
see him become a leader in the Gnome project or any project where his
objectives didn't involve tapping out code.



>As a social engineer- a man attempting to create a change in society,
he
>has been very successful. Certainly on the very short list of computer
>programmers seeking and successfully creating social change. He defined
>free software. Even if you prefer to call it Open Source (as I very
>often
>do. 

As someone who makes money doing software, I can sell "Open Source" but
I cannot sell "Free Software".  Whenever you see the word free you
wonder what the catch is or of its quality.  Once again this is an
enigmatic research scientist versus an applied scientist.  When one gets
too far into telling the other his business stuff breaks down.

>it's easier to explain, I think).  Many if not most people who run
>Linux and (free|net|open)BSD agree that making software free can
>provide
>more value to the user, and in the long run, the programming community,
>than the type of proprietary software that became prevalent in the
>commercial software industry.


I believe software infrastructure can be free.  There will always be a
grey area between infrastructure and business software.  Business
software can never be free.  

>As a Man With A Mission, he's brought hundreds of thousands of people
>(if not millions) around to his point of view. Whether they know it or
>not. Certainly, his aim to re-create the free software-oriented
>environment of the AI Lab/ITS community has succeeded beyond all
>imagination. He received the McCarther Foundation's Genius award, and
>those aren't just bandied about.

To be fair he's done a lot but he built on a tradition that was already
in place.  He just organized it into a movement.

>Free software (built on Linux and other free OS's) have reinvigorated a
>form of hobbyist computing that had almost completely disappeared by
>the
>late 80's, early 90's. For me and millions of others, free software has
>made computing a fun hobby again. How can you be a hobbyist with
>nothing
>to tinker with? Proprietary software is boring.

I disagree that he was the catalyst of this.  Right place at the right
time with the right goal.  In truth it was more of a cultural economic
change that caused this, he was part of it, but not the catalyst I would
say.


>He gave us the GPL. The GPL is a brilliant legal document and a
>revolutionary manifesto at the same time. It's simple. It's elegant.
>Even
>a non-lawyer can understand it (something you can't say about the
>typical
>EULA that comes with windows, etc.) And it has provided a firm
>foundation
>for a free software movement. You can tell its working by how much MS
>hates it. It "breaks the virtuous cycle" of commercial companies
>building
>proprietary systems out of free developer's effort. Also, the GPL is
>the
>basis for free software companies like Red Hat, Mandrake, et al. Linus'
>first release of Linux was "for non-commercial use only". The GPL
>changed
>his mind.

I agree.  This has nothing to do with him directing the Gnome project. 
The gnome project has enough political squabbling without RMS to fuel
the fire is the point.  I fully support/like the GPL (although my
project is APL for various reasons).

>Even if you're a BSD/X11 license enthusiast, you should know that rms
>was
>instrumental in getting the BSD developers to re-implement the
>proprietary/AT&T-owned pieces of BSD 4.3. Their efforts became all the
>open source BSD's.

I'm with Linus on BSD.  Don't have anything against it.  Don't really
care about it either.


>Some of the credit for these breakthroughs and successful developments
>goes fairly to rms. If not as the direct player in all of it, then as a
>prime mover, inspirer, definer, prophet.

>Yes prophet. And like the old testament prophets of old, a "A prophet
>is
>not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives,
>and in his own house." No one likes a prophet. Typically, they are
>scruffy, ill-kempt, and wild-eyed. They speak harsh truths no one wants
>to
>hear. They shake things up. People hope they'll just go away.

That fits him in many ways to a T.  I just don't appreciate being told
what I can and can't say and how I *MUST* say it.


>The question of whether a prophet is right- is a different one. But no
>one
>can deny the effect of a prophet on his community. We're rms's
>community
>and the truth is he doesn't get a lot of respect here.

I can see you care about the thing a whole lot more than I do.  
I care about the future of Linux and/or Hurd (who cares that much about
the kernel if it works...Hurd would be a great advance if it ever got
near finished).  I'm not RMS's community.  I'm no man's man.

>Why? Well you say it's because of "pedantic semantics" and "politcal
>baggage". Well, I can't disagree with you. Specifically the issue of
>his
>calling Linux, GNU/Linux (and in the emacs configure script: lignux)
>lost
>rms a lot of political capital. The Linux community didn't want to here
>him tell them that all their wonderful work (and it was wonderful. even
>back in '93 or so when this issue first came up) was dependent on the
>efforts of him and the FSF. And that they wanted credit.

I've had a similar disagreement with other folks.  I try to satiate them
occasionally with one of my taglines that aliases all the terms I use
via the "alias" command to all the pedantic issues people have.  Please,
political correctness went out with the 90s.  Lets leave it there.

>The disagreement on Open Source and Free Software was similar.
>Pragmatists
>liked open source as it is easier to explain, and not so scarey to the
>proprietary companies who they wanted on-board. rms' politics and
>insistence on *freedom* as the essence of free software is scarey. cf.
>my
>bit on prophets. :) But to give him credit, that brand of anarchist
>radicalism is important- I don't think Linux would have happened the
>way
>it has if it wasn't rms' inspirational message.

Now in some ways it holds it back.  I'm divided on this issue.  On one
hand I want greater freedom to use open source software in working with
clients.  On the other hand I don't want to see the big boys (IBM, et
al) jerk the developmental direction to their flaky corporate objectives
or evil designs (see those earthlink commercials about personal info). 
That being said, I don't want RMS to drive successful projects into the
ground by creating political conflicts.


>Hmmm. This rant has turned into apoligism for rms. And rms needs no
>apologies. He's given us a lot. Probably, more than we'd like, or feel
>comfortable with.

Like I said.  I don't want to see him on the Gnome Foundation thats my
issue.  Looks like more than a few people agreed with me.

>Although I personally a tremendous advocate for free software (and even
>open source), I can't endorse rms' beliefs that proprietary software is
>by
>its nature immoral. I think it has a lot of disadvantages. I think free
>software is better for user's b/c they have a choice about how it gets
>developed. I think its better for developers b/c it gives us a common
>store of accumulated wisdom and solutions on which to build new
>software.
>But I won't say that proprietary software is evil and those who write
>are
>at best dupes. I feel like people pay the rent however they can, and it
>is
>still much easier to do that writing closed source software. Will it be
>true in the future? Maybe. I don't know. But I'm not going to make it
>into
>a moral judgement.

open source software helped (more Apache projects then Gnu though) me
develop software that paid for my car and food and shelter.  It was
proprietary development that paid the check though.

I fully support free software, open source software and gnu and all the
rest of it.  That has nothing to do with me not wanting to see RMS on
the board.


>I didn't vote on the Gnome Foundation's board. I don't follow gnome's
>development really, so I didn't think it was right to involve myself.
>Would I have voted for rms? I don't know. As I've probably made clear,
>I
>admire the man and his work. He was an important factor in starting the
>Gnome project at its beginning. On the other hand, I think developments
>like the (purported) adaption of Gnome by Sun for Solaris could be very
>important to its future. rms probably doesn't like it. so, perhaps his
>losing is the right thing to have happened for gnome's future.

Then we agree.  I figured voting was for people who'd written source for
the project.  I don't think I qualify.  I just use the thing.


>but I think its not right to celebrate his loss. certainly not to label
>him as a fool or a dinosaur as I've seen some linux-ites do. not only
>is
>it ungrateful, but it's foolish to label your fore-fathers as fools.
>What
>does that say about those who've followed in his tracks?

your words not mine.  I bitched about the very things we agree on.  You
said it more expansively and you obviously have a lot more admiration
for the man then I do ( I think he's a bit of a hypocrite like most
fanatics... That being said he's done some great things and I appreciate
those things, doesn't mean I have to like the guy...Not to say he'd care
that I dont. ), but the point is still.  I'm glad he didn't get elected
feel it would have been terrible for gnome of which I'm an avid user. 
So like I said:

"
> Looks like the gnome people didn't feel like getting corrected over
> pedantic semantics and other FSF political baggage.  Looks like the "
> project won't come to a screaming halt after all.  Too bad, so sad.
> Break out the beer.
"

Point to me the part you disagree with?  As for "too bad, so sad, break
out the beer" attribute that to "personal flare for the news".  ;-p


Andrew C. Oliver
-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com/consulting.jsp - software development for 
                small businesses...cheap too
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
			- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh