Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:33:42 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Martens <Scott.Martens at eng.sun.com> Reply-To: Scott Martens <Scott.Martens at eng.sun.com> Subject: RE: Some tech news part 2 To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <14542.38838.631406.852274 at gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.953066022.25795.smartens at jurassic.eng> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Scott.Martens.eng.sun.com.speak():
>
> > However, the general open source policy that if you don't code, you
> > don't get to have a say, is a good policy and an important one.
>
> should we apply this policy to you, for example? i searched google w/
> __ "Scott Martens" linux__ and got bupkiss..... ditto over at deja
> USENET archives (author search and by name). ;-)
>
> whats my point???!!!!!???
Yes, it applies to me. I'm not working on any open source projects. I have something of an intellectual interest in the movement, but my bosses projects come first as long as they pay the bills. I don't make postings about what features GIMP should have, or what would be cool to integrate into Linux, or how "We should make this killer GUI for Linux and beat back Microsoft." When I'm in a position to actually put some time in it, maybe I will.
> my point is you sound like a perfectly reasonable person to have a
> discussion with about the direction and politics of free software, and
> yet i dont see overwhelming evidence that you have supplied code or
> bug reports. (i am sure this cursory search has missed something).
>
> my point is that for free software developers to become a political
> force, we have to move beyond this 'well have you wrote your own code
> yet' mentality.
I don't think free software as a politcal movement has much future. The politcal values it has may link up well with some larger movement, but by itself, I don't think it can really trancend computing issues. I don't think these are the kinds of people who can be readily rallied to a cause that doesn't touch on their special relationship with technology. As long as they keep getting big paychecks for writing code (and most of them are, the rest aspire to) and as long as the only thing they agree on is that people are ignorant of technology, they will never take on larger social issues.
> > The libertarian ideology of the open-source people is about as deep
> > as Trotskyism was among hippies. Give them a little bit of time and
> > money, and suddenly the ideology disappears. The contradiction of
> > opposing intellectual property restrictions and supporting an
> > anacronistic Austrian view of economics has already caught up with
> > the smart ones, and the others will deal with it when they grow up.
>
> as you note later on, the "community" is not homogenous on this
> score. one does get the feeling reading slashdot that the group is
> split between those slobbering for the next IPO, those indifferent,
> and those who don't like __over__-emphasis on commercialism.
Libertarianism isn't universal in that community, true. Nor was Trotskyism ever universal among the protestors in the 60's. I think the analogy still holds.
> > Note my e-mail address. :^) (Also note that I can't speak for my
> > employers in any capicity whatsoever.) Sun is one of the better
> > shops for open systems, but yes, we're in it for the money.
>
> any insights into why Sun was so uhhh slow to fully support Java under
> linux????
Yes, but I'm a little too paranoid of my bosses to talk about it on an open forum under my real name.
> > Here I disagree. The biggest problem open source has right now is a
> > proliferation of people who have opinions, but who don't write code.
>
> i have mixed feelings on this one. in some of the development niches i
> hang in there is too little room for opinion and debate on
> politics. and though i know people complain about the linux kernel
> development list, you have to admit there is much higher
> signal-to-noise ratio amongst developers and troubleshooters than we
> almost have a right to expect.
>
> so i am not sure the proliferation of opinions is the problem
> here. i'd say more taht the problem is that there are negligible
> organized political currents in the free software world other than
> what either accumulated capital can organize for its own benefits,
Alright, perhaps I didn't have the right to say what "the biggest problem" is, since I'm pretty peripheral.
Bug reports are a different matter, and soliciting suggestions from the users is very sensible, but ultimately the decisions on what gets done and what gets intergrated are made by the coders.
But I do think that OSS project decisions should be made by those putting time and energy into them, not other people with their own agendas who expect someone else to do all the work. The means of production should belong to the workers. Not the bosses or the activists or committees of outsiders, just the workers.
For a largely rehabilitated Marxist trapped in a cubicle, that is much of what makes OSS intersting and attractive.
> > Corporate software outfits have the same problem, in the form of
> > non-technical managers. Letting everyone in on design decisions is
> > the road to gridlock. The current system, for all its flaws,
> > doesn't work so badly.
>
> IMHO you missed nathan's point, which was a political one, not a
> technical point about keeping code generation at high quality level by
> filtering mechanisms to keep the "masses out".
Yes, OSS isn't responsive to non-technology related interests. But I have to wonder if they should be. Software is not going to overthrow governments or change political systems, at least not as its intended result. Technology does change social systems, but in utterly unpredicatable ways. If political responsibility doesn't change the product, then why would it be of interest to OSS?
OSS needs politics the way a fish needs a bicycle.
I think it's become to politicised already, with the repeated emphasis on the part of some people on free markets rather than free knowledge, and the contradictions created by hating intellectual property restrictions while demanding extensive private property rights.
Scott Martens