Responding to everyone (Doug, Andy F, Jordan, Chuck, Angelus Novus).
Andy F wrote:
> On 1/23/07, ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
>
>> Of course we are not talking about IT support here, but about the
>> Free Software movement, and in particular, Stallman. And it is
>> amusing as hell to hear "the left" disparage "getting deeply into
>> things". I guess we should just post blog entries and run straw
>> polls, eh?
>
> Yeah, no shit. Somebody went and tried to Do Something, wound up
> making large chunks of the means of production all commie-like, and
> gets cut down for being too idealistic. I can't help but take note.
>
Hence the "purer than thou" in the title ;-).
Doug wrote:
>
> Oh, so communism requires consumers to do more work. Where do I sign
> up?
>
More work than what? So your version of communism is a community where things happen because? Oh I forgot -- Marxism is a science, isn't it. I guess all the things will get produced by technology, robots and such. ;-) As I wrote (and others have written), Free Software does not require that you write code, or do any particular thing. It is no different from understanding where, for example, your current privileges come from. What you are asked for is to participate in whatever way you can, and not at all, if you are unable to do so (therefore also the free beer part). But if you ultimately see human beings as "consumers" perhaps none of this will ever appeal to you. Perhaps it may be necessary to point out that communism is not an end or a foregone conclusion as a means. If it gets me to the real goals it is worth considering, but only as much as anything else.
Jordan wrote:
> Ravi says:
>
>> If I was the IT guy, I wouldn't say "Oops", I would say "serves you
>> right".
>
> ... thus proving exactly why people no longer want to have "an IT
> guy" around.
>
Ha! They wouldn't last a day without some IT person being around. "I swear I didn't hit the delete key". ;-)
Doug wrote:
> By the way, it seems to me that the biggest enthusiasts for this sort
> of thing are software producers, not users. That's not a bad thing,
>
Not true. As I pointed out users write documentation, report bugs, generate builds, help other users out, etc, etc.
> of course; throwing off the chains of commodification and
> exploitation are always admirable. But software producers often
> assume a level of interest in drilling deep into things among the
> broad public that may not exist.
Your argument fails me. Assume the interest doesn't exist. Neither for example does gender equality. So?
> And doesn't IBM use Linux, and a bevy of other corps? Are they part
> of the communist conspiracy?
Yeah, that's a whole other debate (see the various Stallman vs Raymond "wars"). BTW I didn't use the word "communis[mt]" in my message (quoted by you) and Andy F only wrote "commie-like".
> yeah, that's another point - I'm not convinced that the free software
> thing is really that serious an alternative economic model - it
> involves lots of free riding on the resources of parents and
> employers, no? - how, can the free exchange of code deal with a world
> where we still have to use cash money to eat and secure shelter?
So free ride on employers while you can. What's the problem with that? Your purism makes you feel for the poor employer? ;-) Cash money etc are devices, yes? Surely the device can be adapted to various systems. Of course Free Software relates only to software/Internet/etc. It cannot solve cancer or bring up a child. But the bottom line is that it delivers something valuable today.
There is a Cartesian confusion IMHO in this type of argument. As if we do not already exist in (and only because of) a system of co-operation (social) and codes (moral). And in this instance, that old bogeyman "primitivism" will probably not fly.
Chuck wrote:
> Geeks have a bad attitude towards users. Digg or Slashdot had a link
> last week to an article about the need for geeks to improve their
> attitudes and adopt a code of ethics. I'm one of those geeks who
> doesn't like to muck around in code or putting computers together. I
> want my software and websites to work so I can use them to do other
> work. At the same time, I can understand the very anarchistic geek
> attitude that people should understand the technology they use.
I do not see how geeks have any worse an attitude than a cab driver, or an accountant. And hey, this list better not talk about "attitude" -- it was only five threads ago that everyone was imploring that we at least be civil in criticising each other ;-). But I am selling Free Software short... Ubuntu which you wax on about, for example, is an effort to make life with Linux easier for... you guessed it... end users.
Angelus Novus wrote:
> Also, there seems to be a romantic, media-created
> image floating about of anonymous coders collaborating
> in groovy one-love non-hierarchical ways via the
> internet to churn out software. In reality, most key
> programs, such as the Linux kernel, have fairly
> well-established hierarchies in place to "maintain"
> particular pieces of code, with select individuals at
> the top deciding amongst themselves what pieces of
> code are officially adopted and which are not.
>
So, here is a simple challenge. The entire CVS history of Mozilla is available for public perusal. Why not give us a list of contributors to the project (and here I mean just the developers, to make life easier) and then let us know how many of these are "anonymous" and how many "famous". Or let us say you have something to contribute to the GCC compiler. Feel free to forward me your diffs and if it is an improvement there is a high probability it will go in. There are code patches that I and those I know have contributed to various such projects. Hierarchies (and even Benevolent Dictators) exist, for sure, and some of that can be improved upon, but some of it is a natural outcome: if you feel the Linux kernel needs a better memory management mechanism, should you be allowed to submit the code willy-nilly? In fact, you have the option to do so: For your own *nix: Angelux. Hell, I will even volunteer to test it for you! Part of the error I see is in thinking that the Linux kernel is key to Free Software. In my opinion, the GNU suite is far more so (hence my point about GNU/*BSD), but even that is not the point. There is Free Software for Windows. For Mac OS X. Nothing to do with Linux at all. In fact, in terms of deployment and also lines of code, Linux kernel code may not even be in the top 5.
I don't know of anyone in Free Software (though I don't know all of them ;-)) who has a groovy one-love image! I do know a lot of them who think it is fun to write code and share it with others.
--ravi