Interesting tensions
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| montezuma Mar 22, 2008 10:16 AM EDT |
Jeff Waugh makes some good and direct points about how zealotry can be counter-productive in gaining mainstream acceptance of FOSS. OTOH the zealotry reflects the long hard road that FOSS has had to take in a monopolistic world... It is the shear single mindedness of some FOSS advocates that have sustained the movement for so long as well (eg RMS). Comes with the territory.... |
| tuxchick Mar 22, 2008 10:47 AM EDT |
Seems like we've seen a steady diet of "bigmouth fOSSiles hurt FOSS" articles lately. But none of them get beyond the author's personal distaste for what other people are saying. If they could come up with examples of actual harm it would be interesting, like "European Union Fed Up With FOSS Bigmouths, Embraces Microsoft." As it is, they're pretty much content-devoid and just personal laments. |
| herzeleid Mar 22, 2008 10:50 AM EDT |
> But none of them get beyond the author's personal distaste for what other people are saying. Hear hear, voice of reason, bout damn time... |
| dumper4311 Mar 22, 2008 1:43 PM EDT |
> If they could come up with examples of actual harm it would be interesting, like "European Union Fed Up With FOSS Bigmouths, Embraces Microsoft." Not particularly interesting. What it would in fact be is an example of "I'm going to punish you for acting like a jackass". No one - business, government, or otherwise is going to do that if they choose to behave like grownups. It's a simple fact, as any adult who's had to put up with less-than-mature protesters can attest to, that actions like those described in this article hurt constructive dialog. Personal distaste? Yes, I feel personal distaste when supposedly rational people resort to personal attacks against me. Nothing unreasonable about feeling like you've been insulted after you have actually been insulted. Whether you care to recognize it or not, personally attacking people whose positions you're trying to influence is an ineffective and damaging tactic. If you have an intelligent argument to make, make it. If you possess the capability of rational discourse with people holding differing opinions, utilize it. If not, then expect to be discounted as irrelevant. >content-devoid and just personal laments. Oh, you mean like this (from the article): Some of the public responses to the article labelled Gibson a "bureaucratic parasite" and his concerns "short-sighted". Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me. :) A little less emotion on all sides would probably be a good thing. |
| tuxchick Mar 22, 2008 3:03 PM EDT |
I agree that mature discourse and not making personal attacks is probably the better approach. I'm just tired of all the complaining, and the claims that it damages FOSS without giving any actual examples. Especially since most of it happens in forums, mailing lists, and publications that most folks outside FOSS don't even know exist. Mr. Waugh claims that FOSS adoption is actually derailed, and thatQuoting: "None of them will talk about open source because none of them want to get their head bitten off." Nice sweeping generalizations with nothing to back them up. Who are they talking to, anyway? The local Loudmouth LUG? More likely Red Hat, Novell, or some other commercial outfit. Has anyone ever lost their job, like Peter Quinn, or been deliberately slandered like Matthew Holloway, ( http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080318151252279 ), or entire standards processes subverted and trashed (ECMA and ISO) because of rude FOSS advocates? Quoting: These included comments directed at Australian Taxation Office chief information officer Bill Gibson, after he told ZDNet.com.au that his agency's adoption of open-source software had been stalled by security concerns. Without knowing any more, I would certainly wonder about these "security concerns." What's the alternative, Windows?? For all we know, the "rude" comments are accurate- it wouldn't be the first time a government agency emitted mealy-mouthed excuses. Anyway, I think a few rude bigmouths are pretty trivial compared to the scorched-earth take-no-prisoners tactics of our favorite illegal monopolist. |
| ColonelPanik Mar 22, 2008 4:46 PM EDT |
Colonel Zealot reporting for duty! One can be a zealot without being a hooligan. |
| gus3 Mar 22, 2008 5:17 PM EDT |
And vice-versa. |
| dumper4311 Mar 22, 2008 7:32 PM EDT |
>One can be a zealot without being a hooligan.
>And vice-versa.
>a few rude bigmouths are pretty trivial compared to . . . True, in every case. I'm just saying that the kind of abuse of software control we're working against doesn't grant us license to act in any way less than as professional adults. To respond as described in articles like this or to justify such a response demeans us, and harms "the movement". Yes, I believe wholeheartedly that "microsoft sucks". I also believe there are plenty of "professionals" out there who couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper sack, and they will continue to be slaves to the abuse of ethically bankrupt interests who control their data. But if our response consists to any significant degree of loudly proclaiming that from the rooftops for all the world to hear then we will lose. While these facts may provide us motivation to work for change, they don't help us enact any such change. If we channel some of that zealous energy towards useful, reasoned, practical solutions then everyone wins. Ultimately this is the only way the world sees "the movement" as anything more than an overly vocal minority. |
| tuxchick Mar 22, 2008 7:57 PM EDT |
Thanks a lot, dumper. You just took all the fun out of calling deserving people 'poopyheads'. ;) |
| dumper4311 Mar 22, 2008 8:21 PM EDT |
@TC: I must have a masochistic streak, I'd almost miss it if you quit calling me names. :) |
| gus3 Mar 22, 2008 11:33 PM EDT |
Why shouldn't one enjoy being put down by the best? |
| jdub Mar 23, 2008 4:48 AM EDT |
@tuxchick: It doesn't matter if the responses are accurate -- whether or not you are "selling" FLOSS in a commercial sense or encouraging its use as an advocate, punching your potential customers in the face is a Really Stupid thing to do. In this case, the CIO of the ATO is very clearly a prime potential customer. Calling someone stupid is not the path towards winning their interest or affection. I don't believe anyone would consider it an effective means of advocacy -- but often enough people don't even consider that (particularly when they're posting anonymously). (You suggest I have nothing to back up my claims, although you yourself have no idea whether that's true or not. As it happens, my frustration comes from years of hearing about and dealing with the negative fallout that this behaviour causes -- in business and government. It absolutely has an impact.) |
| montezuma Mar 23, 2008 5:25 AM EDT |
Fair points Jeff but you'd want to be careful about tarring ALL the "zealots" with the same brush. I have a lot of time for what Stallman and others have done even though I don't like how obnoxious they are at times. |
| jdub Mar 23, 2008 6:00 AM EDT |
Sure, Richard is quirky, holds his principles dear and is not particularly well socialised... but he doesn't call potential allies "stupid", and he isn't an anonymous troll. By the way, at no time did I use the word "zealot" in the article, nor did I tar "all" of the community with the same brush. You'll note that I specifically said "a vocal minority". |
| gus3 Mar 23, 2008 7:31 AM EDT |
"not particularly well socialised" I MUST remember that phrase. |
| thenixedreport Mar 23, 2008 9:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:Open-source efforts derailed by 'loud minority' Yeah, I can remember one instance of that happening last year concerning a certain car race. The line was crossed into Libel territory, and the person who did that is still lying today about what actually happened. |
| dinotrac Mar 23, 2008 1:46 PM EDT |
TC et al: Yeah, sure, people acting like idiots hurts FOSS. I can buy that. Better for everybody to lock arms and sing songs, but... Hey! I remember lots of talk ten years ago that immature and loud-mouthed FOSS folk would prevent uptake of FOSS in business. Hasn't happened. What will hurt the uptake of FOSS is a lack of FOSS worth having. So long as good stuff flows, good times will roll. |
| jdixon Mar 23, 2008 3:49 PM EDT |
> I'm just saying that the kind of abuse of software control we're working against doesn't grant us license to act in any way less than as professional adults. People need a license to act in a juvenile manner? Since when? Where do you get one? Why does no one tell me these things? And, perhaps most important, how do I report those who don't and who do I report them to? > ...punching your potential customers in the face is a Really Stupid thing to do. What makes you think they're potential customers? It sounds to me like there minds are already made up and there's no point in trying to convince them. In such a case I see nothing wrong with voicing the simple truth. |
| Scott_Ruecker Mar 23, 2008 4:04 PM EDT |
I'm with you Dino, The this whole thing is just another way of asking the dissenters to shut up. |
| jdub Mar 23, 2008 4:16 PM EDT |
@jdixon: Because, as is so clearly the case with this example, the only issue is a lack of knowledge. If someone says something out of ignorance (*not* malice), then they're very likely to be a potential customer once you've helped them along the way. If you tell them they're idiots for not being as smart as you (and having all the answers about the particular thing you care about that they haven't had the time or interest to research quite so deeply), they're vastly less likely to have any interest in what you're trying to sell them. "Oh, Open Source? The one with all the flaming children? Yeah. Not interested." The particular example discussed in the article above is a classic case. This dude doesn't have anything against Open Source at all, he just doesn't have all the answers. Perfect opening to sell him on the idea... until the loud-mouthed, unproductive, nasty (and almost always anonymous) idiots come along to screw up another person's idea of what Open Source is. |
| montezuma Mar 23, 2008 4:42 PM EDT |
I'm with Dino on this. The reason that open source is catching on is primarily technical excellence and economic value. The rest is noise. The now hugely commercial linux trade shows long ago demonstrated that the perception of linux as a project by "poor, bearded loners" is not relevant. Ask all the back room server managers on Wall Street.... |
| jdub Mar 23, 2008 5:23 PM EDT |
Existing success doesn't indicate a lack of problems. :-) |
| gus3 Mar 23, 2008 7:08 PM EDT |
Nor do existing problems indicate a lack of success. Is the bar set high by the competition? Yes, but whether we clear the bar by two feet or two inches doesn't matter. Or, to quote a punch line: "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you." |
| tracyanne Mar 23, 2008 7:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:until the loud-mouthed, unproductive, nasty (and almost always anonymous) idiots come along to screw up another person's idea of what Open Source is. They're probably Microsoft shills, that's why they are anonymous. |
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2008 1:12 AM EDT |
And please, don't get me wrong... As I said, I would much prefer that everybody behave themselves, but, they don't. Developers don't behave themselves, just like developers in closed, commercial enterprises. I am constantly amazed by the behavior of grown-up men and women working under actual bosses and collecting actual paychecks. We don't see most of that because it's intramural combat in the normal case. We also don't see idiot bosses imposing questionable visions and stupid organizational practices, except in the relatively rare cases of fed-up Microsoft bloggers during Vista development. The difference with FOSS is that it's open, which means people can see your dirty laundry. |
| number6x Mar 24, 2008 5:31 AM EDT |
If you want to see zealotry over an OS, just watch the monkeyboy dance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMrhoOHNOrI I have met a few Linux users who think the point of Linux is to destroy Microsoft. They tend to be in their teens or early twenties, male, and not too mature. Most Linux users I know use Linux because it meets their needs better than Windows does. However, I seem to meet many Windows zealots. They become offended because I use Linux in the workplace. They seem to take it as a personal affront. Its just an OS. If your OS does what you want, good for you. If it doesn't meet your needs, try another OS or fix the one you've got(if you can!). |
| ColonelPanik Mar 24, 2008 6:36 AM EDT |
So we are all BFF now? Good. |
| jdixon Mar 24, 2008 7:03 AM EDT |
> ..as is so clearly the case with this example, the only issue is a lack of knowledge. In this particular case (from the article) we talking about "Australian Taxation Office chief information officer Bill Gibson' and "Standards Australia's Alistair Tegart". These are technical and government positions where the people involved are supposed to know their field. If they're dismissing open source due to a "lack of knowledge", they deserve any criticism they're getting. Gaining such knowledge is part of their job. |
| danns Mar 24, 2008 6:26 PM EDT |
> These are technical and government positions where the people involved are supposed to know their field. If they're dismissing open source due to a "lack of knowledge", they deserve any criticism they're getting. Gaining such knowledge is part of their job. Becareful wtih this line of thought. Just because they are top in their technical field does not make them a master of all technology nor even knowledgeable of all technology. I don't know what systems the Australian Government runs but chances are they are systems that have been in place for many years and thus the people running said systems are extremely well versed in their environment. They might not have made the time to educate themselves in other systems. For instance, if they have been using Cisco equipment all this time there is no reason to suspect they have any idea that maybe 3com or Nortel would serve their needs better and cheaper (just an example, not saying they would). So coming at them with negative criticism and put downs does nothing more than to have them dig in deeper, raise their defense mechanisms and turn a deaf ear. They don't hear the benefits of what you are talking about over the screams of how incompetent you think they are. The old adage holds true, you draw more flies with honey than vinegar. It has taken a lot of time, people and persistent demonstration to bring FOSS to where it is today, and it will keep growing. But that does not mean a handful of vociferous negative-nancies won't retard this growth. Have some consideration and treat people better than you would like to be treated. Effect change through example, not intimidation and derogatory challenges. |
| herzeleid Mar 24, 2008 7:27 PM EDT |
> However, I seem to meet many Windows zealots. They become offended because I use Linux in the workplace. They seem to take it as a personal affront. I've seen that in the workplace as well. When they understand that you are using linux, they become agitated, and say things like "why don't you just use windows like everyone else?" To which I can only reply, "Not everyone is using windows, nor should they have to" |
| jdixon Mar 25, 2008 3:20 AM EDT |
> I don't know what systems the Australian Government runs but chances are they are systems that have been in place for many years and thus the people running said systems are extremely well versed in their environment. These aren't the people running those systems. They're the administrators in charge of those people. |
| montezuma Mar 25, 2008 3:56 AM EDT |
>These aren't the people running those systems. They're the administrators in charge of those people. The ATO works like the army (I worked for them a very long time ago). There is a chain of command structure. The CIO is probably from an IT background but is getting strong technical advice from below. ATO is paranoid about security so are likely ultra-conservative about changing a complex proprietary system. These guys comfort levels are very important to them. My guess is that they would laugh to themselves about snotty comments by open source advocates... It won't change their views either way. |
| jdixon Mar 25, 2008 5:13 AM EDT |
> My guess is that they would laugh to themselves about snotty comments by open source advocates... It won't change their views either way. Agreed. |
| tracyanne Mar 25, 2008 5:21 AM EDT |
@ montezuma when did you work for the ATO? I was there in 2002. |
| montezuma Mar 25, 2008 1:48 PM EDT |
Tracy: I was there in 1980 ;-) |
| tracyanne Mar 25, 2008 7:38 PM EDT |
@ montezuma Bugger, we just missed each other. I might add, from your description, they hadn't changed all that much. |
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!