lol
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| incinerator Sep 06, 2006 12:42 AM EDT |
Watch out, flamebait: "open-source true believer" is an oxymoron. It's like saying RMS is a "Free Software pragmatist". Just another example on how clueless sjvn really is. I've never been one of these militant "Free Software" and "GNU/Linux" terminology supporters, but the term "open source" has been hyped so intensively by clueless journalists lately it makes me sick. I think I'm beginning to understand why RMS doesn't like it, or perhaps not. Apart from that, it's nice to see that more software developers are using open/public development models. Most open source software is Free Software, as well. Good to see more Free Software being developed, even if the developers do it for the "wrong" reasons. |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2006 1:17 AM EDT |
> "open-source true believer" is an oxymoron. Why can one not be a true believer in open source? |
| incinerator Sep 06, 2006 4:21 AM EDT |
Well, I guess if the term "open-source true believer" means:
"I'm actually a true believer in Free Software but I haven't got a clue", then yes, one could be one.
[edit: changed "you could be one" to "one could be one".] I see you haven't been blessed by the enlightenment of St. iGNUcius of the Church of Emacs, yet. http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ is a very good starting point to get there. |
| dcparris Sep 06, 2006 4:45 AM EDT |
Would somebody _please_ just give me a clue??? |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2006 4:46 AM EDT |
incinerator - I've been well-versed in free software for quite some time. Can't be sure, but probably both longer and better than you. I also remember my Shakespeare,"That which we call a rose would smell as sweet." Now, if instead of open source, you referred to Open Source, I would be with you. Open Source is a marketing campaign. |
| Libervis Sep 06, 2006 5:58 AM EDT |
Getting a clue means that if you are a "true believer" you'd also know that using the term "Free Software" is a better way to have someone think in terms of free as in freedom rather than open as in... open. What we aim for is to associate the term "Free Software" with "Free Speech" and ongoing FSF campaigns to activists are gonna solidify that association even further. "Open Source" (wether you capitalize it or not) just doesn't have that kind of power. It's just a buzzword and a name of a huge marketing campaign that got out of control. I too am tired of hearing "open source open source open source" all the freaking time. The revolution we are experiencing is fundamentally about returning freedom in the world of IT, that means Free Software. It's not just about opening the source code which is pretty much something many so far have thought about when talking about "open source". They didn't think it was also about freedom to use, modify and share, just that it has an open source of the code. I've even seen people writing their own licenses which prohibit sharing and derivate works and calling it "open source". How meaningful must the term really be then? |
| SFN Sep 06, 2006 6:05 AM EDT |
I'd suggest avoiding the semantics game. The more time spent quibbling over the naming of something, the less important the thing becomes. Try googling George Carlin's bit about "Shell Shock" vs. "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". It illustrates the idea nicely. Oh wait...I'm not supposed to say "googling"! |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2006 6:23 AM EDT |
SFN - Exactly. What is more useful is to understand that having a clue is more about understanding than naming -- or even agreeing. After all, any old bumper sticker has room for a name and a sentiment. |
| incinerator Sep 06, 2006 6:30 AM EDT |
dinotrac: edited my response a wee bit, it was an honest typo. Sorry, I did not want to imply anything about you personally at all. SFN: I think that's a matter of perception. To you it's just a silly game about discussing semanticts. To others it is a wee bit more than that. I myself prefer the terms GNU/Linux and Free Software, but I'm usually tolerant enough no to start nitpicking around when people use that other term(tm). What I don't like though is clueless journalists mixing up things they don't have a clue about and then proclaiming news that don't make sense. The term "open-source true believer" doesn't make sense, it's a slip caused by sjvn cluelessness. Besides, it's easy to mock about. Everyone remember RMS remark when he, on behalf of the FSF accepted the Linus Torvalds Award? RMS:"Giving the Linus Torvalds Award to the Free Software Foundation is a bit like giving the Han Solo Award to the Rebel Alliance." .harhar. Anyway, I like to flame about sjvn's articles because they are so bad. I'm probably doing him quite a bit of unjustice but unless he starts doing better research I won't stop doing so. It's people like him that get read by many people that are the prime cause of so many widespread misconceptions about Free Software in general and GNU/Linux in particular. Out of misguided benevolence they oversimplify, abridge, adapt important facts that they become lies. And it's us in the LUGs and doing the Install Fests who have to straighten it out again... |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2006 6:39 AM EDT |
Incinerator - No offense taken. And, let's be honest -- a little devil's advocate on my part. Always good to keep the lines straight for visitors!! |
| Libervis Sep 06, 2006 6:53 AM EDT |
Hmm semantics. If those are semantics than the whole language we speak are semantics. Why would it then be so important to spell correctly? Why do people sometimes say using a certain term to describe someone is maybe "too harsh on him"? Why can sometimes a single sentence said differently mean a difference between truth and a lie? Should we just dismiss it all based on them being "semantics"? What you say counts. What terms you use counts. Not every term is percieved the same way and perception matters. I believe "Free Software" causes people to percieve Free Software as what it really is. It is also fair, because that is what the whole thing was called from the beginning. I don't think that the use of the term "open source" has enough compelling reasons to be used instead of "Free Software". It has actually proved to be even more vague than the term "Free Software" is. You may say the word "Free" is amgiguous, but then you could say the same for "Free Speech". I think this ambiguity is increasingly irrelevant as more and more people start seeing the relation between Free Speech movement and Free Software movement. Capitalization of the term also makes a subtle difference. "Open Source" doesn't have that much going for it except the fact that it's being used by too many people talking about something that they really don't know much about or even deliberately use it just to appear trendy. |
| dcparris Sep 06, 2006 7:23 AM EDT |
> "Open Source" doesn't have that much going for it except the fact that it's being used by too many people talking about something that they really don't know much about or even deliberately use it just to appear trendy. Speaking of semantics, the term "Free Software", is normally referenced without capitals, and most people would miss the point if you did capitalize it. However, semantics does play a role. For example, the idea of "open source" has been playe upon by Microsoft execs for some time, and even watered down. Consider Allchin's remark about the definition of "open source" - essentially redefining it on his own terms. Semantics allows that to happen. This is why Stallman insists so strongly on using specific terminology. The term "digital restrictions management" has been adopted by those who abhor what "digital rights management" actually does. It's semantics at play. Thus, semantics play a crucial role in keeping the issues clear. Even in my debate with Titch, he constantly used semantics to play on the confusion he surely knows the average computer user (or maybe IT manager) faces. When I called him lying outright, he claimed I merely "disagreed" with his viewpoint. |
| SFN Sep 06, 2006 7:45 AM EDT |
Quoting:Even in my debate with Titch, he constantly used semantics to play on the confusion he surely knows the average computer user (or maybe IT manager) faces. When I called him lying outright, he claimed I merely "disagreed" with his viewpoint. Sounds to me like he was using semantics to create (or at least, maintain) confusion. Who's Titch? |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2006 7:57 AM EDT |
>Who's Titch? Other than proof that chihuahuas can type, no one of importance. |
| Libervis Sep 06, 2006 8:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:When I called him lying outright, he claimed I merely "disagreed" with his viewpoint. Hmm interesting. :) |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2006 9:34 AM EDT |
> it's a slip caused by sjvn cluelessness. Given SJVN's relative cluefullness in the past, I doubt that's the case. I suspect that he has bought into ESR's marketing campaign and simply prefers the term Open Source as being more acceptable to many in his target audience (which includes, and may even be largely composed of, suits). Remember that SJVN is largely on our side in this grand experiment we're undertaking. From memory, such as it is, he was one of the first "real journalists" to argue that Linux was business ready and one of the first to debunk SCO's claims. |
| Scott_Ruecker Sep 06, 2006 11:01 AM EDT |
just my 2 cents, I agree with jdixon that SJVN is certainly on "our side". I know that I have not been around Linux as long as many in this conversation I can only go by what I have read of his. Some of his stuff is great and some of it is not, but at least he has not flip-flopped. Like I said, just 2 cents worth. :-) |
| Libervis Sep 06, 2006 11:19 AM EDT |
I agree that SJVN is more of a friend than an enemy and hence I am usually interested in what he has to say. Unfortunately, though, as many others of his type, he's more inclined to buying the all-practical side of things that the Open Source campaign offers and that's pretty much what he is writing about. You'll rarely see the talk of freedom issues being at the core of why things are *practically* the way they are. You know, talking of consequences instead of the cause (or both), that's pretty much the way I see Open Source talks. |
| tuxchick2 Sep 06, 2006 11:52 AM EDT |
Libervis, I think if you substitute "expedience" for "all-practical side of things" you get to the core of the issue. It is expedient to say "Free Software does not supply me with the hardware driver I need right now, so I will use a non-Free driver instead", but perhaps not ultimately practical. |
| Libervis Sep 06, 2006 12:03 PM EDT |
Yes, that would probably be right. To be honest the word "expedient" is a new one for me (it sounds familiar but I didn't knew the meaning until I just looked it up on a wiktionary). :)Quoting:Most people, faced with a decision, will choose the most expedient option. EDIT: Sounds like survival of the easiest. ;) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!