From: Kendall Clark <kendall at monkeyfist.com> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:05:12 -0500 (CDT)
>>>>> "kelley" == kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> writes:
>> their computers; or giving away your code to the world at large
>> to read, study, and learn from, and then assembling that code
>> into operating systems that are challenging but give users a
>> tremendous amount of power.
kelley> we were talking, in general, about "geeks". i felt that
kelley> this characterization of geeks (as opposed to peter's
kelley> claim that geeks are "condescending") was a little over
kelley> the top and generously one-sided. giving away code is for
kelley> other people who know what the hell code is and what to do
kelley> with it. ferchrisakes.
Despite being the occasion for Kelley's sociological points re: geeks, I agree with much of what she's said. But in the interests of getting at a broader evaluation of the free software movement, I have a few comments.
It is wrong to say that the code that geeks give away is *just* for "other people who know what the hell code is and what to do with it."
The benefits extend far beyond just other programmers. Some examples:
* The Internet, used by millions of non-programmers, is largely
powered by free software;
* the new Mac operating system is built out of free
software;
* some embedded consumer electronic devices, like the TiVO and
at least one popular game console, include or use free software;
* some new operating systems are nearly all free software.
Totaling these cases up, they may represent as many as 150,000,000 people worldwide who get benefits from free software without knowing "what the hell code is." That's not insignificant.
Now, does that make hackers radically different than any other kind of professional? No, but it may make them relatively distinctive w/in the information technology sector.
Kelley asks why geeks keept touting themselves in these overblown terms. I think there are two main reasons:
1. ignorance (of the kind you highlight)
2. given the fabulous sums of wealth getting created
these days by the computer industry, geeks may
(rightly or wrongly) think they deserve a bit of
*relative* praise given what Bill Gates and his
ilk tend to do with technology.
You can criticize whatever you want from free software culture, and there's a lot there that's wrong.
But I think to get a balanced view of the matter, we need to ask whether, say, Microsoft -- an adjudicated monopolist -- or hordes of free software people have made a more valuable contribution, particularly given some of the things most LBO denizens value.
In other words, it may be that geeks go on and on about their giveaways because, by comparison to monopolizing tendencies in the IT world, they do seem a refreshing change of pace. Compared to the kind of giveaways that are standard in academia and and other professionals (for example, pro bono legal work), their claims *are* overblown.
But compared to Bill Gates and Scott McNealy -- neither of whom ever let a consumer's dime go uncaptured -- they look pretty decent.
Part of what the technical success of free software represents is an academic retrenchment *against* the total domination of computing technology by commercial interests. If, to get some of the benefits of that, we have to listen to self-blind, ignorant boasting about 'gift cultures' and 'revolutions,' it's probably not the worst deal in the world.
kelley> and
kelley> it was indication to me of just how the open source
kelley> movement would end up being coopted by c apital.
Gee, I agree with that. I even went on Canadian public television last year during the spate of 'open source IPOs' and criticized companies like Red Hat and VA Linux precisely for being naively coopted by capital. Of course, it's a sad fact that I was one of a very few people from the free software world CBC could find to do this. That's not good.
But I would rather have to put up with the incessant crowing from geeks, which Kelley rightly describes, than have Microsoft and other multinationals dominate computing technology utterly.
Best, Kendall Clark