over the past years, i've benefited greatly from functional programing
communities thru reading comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.scheme
newsgroups.
I've read many articles and essays that dispels pop myths in computer
industry harbored and spread by students, average joe ignorant
programers, sys admins. About two years ago i started to collect and
save these articles, as to have a coherent base to stop harmful fads
in the industry. I did this casually on my spare time.
harmful myths and baseless creeds are continuously spread by youngster
sites like slashdot.com by the unix crowd, and also books the likes of
Unix Philisophy, sometimes innocently by guys like Eric Raymond, and
sometimes sinisterly by guys like Linus Torvald, Larry Wall, Tom
Christiansen who unscrupulously promote themselves.
Below are some articles i've collected so far. Some are practical,
some are general and broad, some address specific ills, and a couple
are satire. They range from technical criticism to industry criticism.
Some excellent articles i recall having read but didn't save at the
time. I like to request your help for suggesting good articles. If you
know a good article that debunk popular myths, please let me know.
Thank you.
* Joseph M. Newcomer (········@flounder.com)
_Optimization: Your Worst Enemy_, 1999.
http://www.pgh.net/%7enewcomer/optimization.htm
* Theodore W Gray, author of Mathematica frontend
on educational math software, video games, and violence.
http://www.theodoregray.com/BrainRot/index.html;
* "Go To Statement Considered Harmful"
by Edsger W Dijkstra, 1968
http://www.acm.org/classics/oct95/
* Suck.com's Greg Knauss on Netscape and the "Skin" phenomenon
(satire)
http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/04/10/daily.html;
* _fast food the unix way_ (satire) author unknown
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_fastfood_dir/fastfood.html
* Ilya Regularly Expresses, by Ilya Zakharevich thru Joe Johnston,
2000-09-20.
(abut how perl is not really suitable for text processing)
http://www.perl.com/lpt/a/2000/09/ilya.html
* (perl's) POD is not Literate Programming
by Mark-Jason Dominus
2000 March 20
http://www.perl.com/lpt/a/tchrist/litprog.html
* _Why Python_
by Eric S Raymond, 2000-05
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=3882
* _What's wrong with Perl_
Lars Marius Garshol, ~1998
http://www.garshol.priv.no/download/text/perl.html
* Unix-Hater's handbook by Simson Garfinkel, Daniel Weise, Steven
Strassmann, Don Hopkins. 1994.
http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf.
* Ben Adida, "Why not MySQL", 2000-05.
http://openacs.org/philosophy/why-not-mysql.html
* Don Hopkins, 1994, on X-Windows
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_/The_X-Windows_Disaster.html
* Csh Programming Considered Harmful (1995), by Tom Christiansen
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
* Olin Shivers on the ills of unix shells, in his scsh intro
http://www.scsh.net/docu/scsh-paper/scsh-paper-Z-H-1.html
* Why LD_LIBRARY_PATH is bad By David Barr,
http://www.visi.com/~barr/ldpath.html
* On Unix file system case sensitivity by Brian Tiemann, 2002
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_/fileCaseSens.html
* The Rise of "Worse is Better", by Richard P. Gabriel, 1991
http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
* Let's Make Unix Not Suck, by Miguel De Icaza, 1999
(dispells some common myths of unix)
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_/bongo-bong.html
* A Case Aganist OpenSources (A New Paradigm in Intellectual Property
Law?)
by Mathias Strasser, 2001
http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/01_STLR_4/article.htm
the following i still need to work on as to give reference to specific
essays.)
* mathematician D J Bernstein, author of QMail, has many articles on
the ills of unix Sendmail
http://cr.yp.to/djb.html.
* proftpd site http://www.proftpd.org/ has potential articles on how
unix ftpd is incompetent.
* xinetd site http://www.xinetd.org/ has potential articles on why
unix inetd is incompetent.
(i'm also looking for opinion-based articles against eXtreme
Programing, Programing Patterns, UML.)
Thanks in advance.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
> I've read many articles and essays that dispels pop myths in computer
> industry harbored and spread by students, average joe ignorant
> programers, sys admins. About two years ago i started to collect and
> save these articles, as to have a coherent base to stop harmful fads
> in the industry.
For any imaginable viewpoint, you can find articles supporting it.
Often, these articles are quite coherent, sometimes they are just
rants. Anyway, if you collect only articles that criticise certain
practises and none that support them, your collection has at most
entertainment value.
While I agree that a lot of people in the computer industry follow
fads and trends blindly, it will take a two-sided argument backed up
by more than anecdotes to make them realise where they go wrong.
Also, I doubt anyone who follow trends blindly will ever read such
articles, as they have already shown their disinterest in
understanding the issues.
Torben
> harmful myths and baseless creeds are continuously spread by youngster
> sites like slashdot.com by the unix crowd, and also books the likes of
> Unix Philisophy, sometimes innocently by guys like Eric Raymond, and
> sometimes sinisterly by guys like Linus Torvald, Larry Wall, Tom
> Christiansen who unscrupulously promote themselves.
You are a troll.
Christian Szegedy wrote:
>> harmful myths and baseless creeds are continuously spread by
>> youngster sites like slashdot.com by the unix crowd, and also books
>> the likes of Unix Philisophy, sometimes innocently by guys like Eric
>> Raymond, and sometimes sinisterly by guys like Linus Torvald, Larry
>> Wall, Tom Christiansen who unscrupulously promote themselves.
>
> You are a troll.
He expressed his opinion, you seem to have a problem with it.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"Troll" - (n.) Anything you don't like.
Usage: "He's just a troll."
From: Joachim Durchholz
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <bv8c3p$1ir$1@news.oberberg.net>
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Christian Szegedy wrote:
>
>>> harmful myths and baseless creeds are continuously spread by
>>> youngster sites like slashdot.com by the unix crowd, and also
>>> books the likes of Unix Philisophy, sometimes innocently by guys
>>> like Eric Raymond, and sometimes sinisterly by guys like Linus
>>> Torvald, Larry Wall, Tom Christiansen who unscrupulously promote
>>> themselves.
>>
>> You are a troll.
>
> He expressed his opinion, you seem to have a problem with it.
No, Christian is right.
Torben's response says some things why Christian is right.
I have another reason why I consider Xah a troll:
Not that I don't share many of the criticisms in the quoted articles (I
scanned a few of them)... but declaring Linus Torvalds to be a sinister
figure is just flame bait: controversial topic, opinionated statement,
no reasoning why - the signs are all there.
Not that the criticisms in the various articles are generally wrong. I
share many of them. Neither Unix paradigms nor Open Source are a
panacea, and neither RMS nor Linus are their prophets, despite many
people thinking otherwise.
But there aren't many alternatives. (Well, sendmail is finally getting
cleaned up - sort of, anyway... and alternatives are being developed.
The mySql criticism page is being reworked, supposedly to incorporate
recent improvements in mySql. Things are cleaning up - somewhat.)
Regards,
Jo
--
Currently looking for a new job.
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>
> Not that the criticisms in the various articles are generally wrong. I
> share many of them.
Not to speak about calling "fads and myths" the article "GOTO considered
harmful" by EWD :)
V.
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> I have another reason why I consider Xah a troll:
> Not that I don't share many of the criticisms in the quoted articles (I
> scanned a few of them)... but declaring Linus Torvalds to be a sinister
> figure is just flame bait: controversial topic, opinionated statement,
> no reasoning why - the signs are all there.
>
> Not that the criticisms in the various articles are generally wrong. I
> share many of them. Neither Unix paradigms nor Open Source are a
> panacea, and neither RMS nor Linus are their prophets, despite many
> people thinking otherwise.
RMS does not and never did have anything to do with the Open Source
movement per se. Open Source is ESR's response to RMS's Free Software
movement, which appears to be what the article is really criticizing.
Xah does not seem to worry so much about who wrote these
articles. Notably, Dan Bernstein, while apparently a good programmer,
is sufficiently egotistical that I wouldn't take anything he said about
Sendmail at face value. Sendmail is indeed a rather lousy system,
at least from the user perspective, but for an unbiased assessment
of its flaws I would not look to Bernstein.
David
Feuer wrote:
>
> Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>
>
>>I have another reason why I consider Xah a troll:
>>Not that I don't share many of the criticisms in the quoted articles (I
>>scanned a few of them)... but declaring Linus Torvalds to be a sinister
>>figure is just flame bait: controversial topic, opinionated statement,
>>no reasoning why - the signs are all there.
>>
>>Not that the criticisms in the various articles are generally wrong. I
>>share many of them. Neither Unix paradigms nor Open Source are a
>>panacea, and neither RMS nor Linus are their prophets, despite many
>>people thinking otherwise.
>
>
> RMS does not and never did have anything to do with the Open Source
> movement per se. Open Source is ESR's response to RMS's Free Software
> movement, which appears to be what the article is really criticizing.
I don't know which article you guys are talking about, but the Mathias
Strasser article is a thorougly confused piece of paranoid nonsense even
granting the above. It's difficult to narrow down the criticism this
article deserves, but it's worth pointing out that he's arguing as if we
were somehow forced to make an absolute choise between all software
being proprietary and all software being open source--as if it was
somehow a fundamental contradiction for both to exist in this world at
the same time. He seems to find it inconceivable that programmers
themselves should decide how their code is to be treated as intellectual
property.
-thant
Thant Tessman wrote:
> I don't know which article you guys are talking about, but the Mathias
> Strasser article is a thorougly confused piece of paranoid nonsense even
> granting the above. It's difficult to narrow down the criticism this
> article deserves, but it's worth pointing out that he's arguing as if we
> were somehow forced to make an absolute choise between all software
> being proprietary and all software being open source--as if it was
> somehow a fundamental contradiction for both to exist in this world at
> the same time. He seems to find it inconceivable that programmers
> themselves should decide how their code is to be treated as intellectual
> property.
See, RMS is/was in favor of ending software copyrights...
David
Feuer <·····@his.com> wrote in message news:<···············@his.com>...
> Thant Tessman wrote:
>
> > I don't know which article you guys are talking about, but the Mathias
> > Strasser article is a thorougly confused piece of paranoid nonsense even
> > granting the above. It's difficult to narrow down the criticism this
> > article deserves, but it's worth pointing out that he's arguing as if we
> > were somehow forced to make an absolute choise between all software
> > being proprietary and all software being open source--as if it was
> > somehow a fundamental contradiction for both to exist in this world at
> > the same time. He seems to find it inconceivable that programmers
> > themselves should decide how their code is to be treated as intellectual
> > property.
>
> See, RMS is/was in favor of ending software copyrights...
>
> David
No, he isn't/wasn't. Copyright forms the basis of the whole GPL thing.
He is however in favour of ending software PATENTS.
-D
Duncan Rose wrote:
> Feuer <·····@his.com> wrote in message news:<···············@his.com>...
>
[...]
>>See, RMS is/was in favor of ending software copyrights...
>>
>
>
> No, he isn't/wasn't. Copyright forms the basis of the whole GPL thing.
> He is however in favour of ending software PATENTS.
To be fair to Feuer, RMS does seem to be a true "software communist" in
the sense that he objects to the ownership of software to the degree
that it is a capital resource. What makes his case so interesting is
that he's so convinced of the validity of his position that he's
perfectly willing to "play fair" to prove it by way of copyrights (i.e.
a form of property rights). This is a point many critics of GNU or Open
Source seem to deliberatly ignore or even obfuscate (e.g. SCO), but it's
one this rabid libertarian certainly doesn't have a problem with.
-thant
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <uwu7ay5h8.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:23:15 -0700, Thant Tessman ("Thant") writes:
Thant> To be fair to Feuer, RMS does seem to be a true "software communist"
Thant> in the sense that he objects to the ownership of software to the
Thant> degree that it is a capital resource. What makes his case so
Thant> interesting is that he's so convinced of the validity of his position
Thant> that he's perfectly willing to "play fair" to prove it by way of
Thant> copyrights (i.e. a form of property rights). This is a point many
Thant> critics of GNU or Open Source seem to deliberatly ignore or even
Thant> obfuscate (e.g. SCO), but it's one this rabid libertarian certainly
Thant> doesn't have a problem with.
Most (if not all) of the software that RMS has developed was paid
for entirely, or heavily subsidized by, the federal Government.
Everything he did before FSF was wholly funded by the DOD,
and the last time I looked, he was still using laboratory
and office space at MIT that's paid for by federal grants.
The main thing RMS objected to was when people decided to spend
their own personal resources on making improvements to some of
that software and then wanting to own the fruits of their labors.
The "patent" issue came about because he was infuriated that
they would not allow him to join their company, and would
not "share" their improvements with the competing companies
that he was affiliated with.
Somehow, none of that strike me as a "rabid libertarian" viewpoint.
I think that serious reforms are needed in the software patent laws,
but that's really orthogonal to the "free software" thing, which
is strewn with naive counterproductive theories of economy, and
historical myths. It also has nothing at all to do with "open source".
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
[...]
> Most (if not all) of the software that RMS has developed was paid
> for entirely, or heavily subsidized by, the federal Government.
> Everything he did before FSF was wholly funded by the DOD,
> and the last time I looked, he was still using laboratory
> and office space at MIT that's paid for by federal grants.
[...]
I didn't know that. Although I suppose I should have guessed. Not sure
what you think this should imply about the morality of the GPL by
itself, independent of the issues of whether some software may or may
not have been legitimately placed under it.
[...]
> I think that serious reforms are needed in the software patent laws,
Yup,
> but that's really orthogonal to the "free software" thing, which
> is strewn with naive counterproductive theories of economy, and
> historical myths.
Yes, but unless a free software nut can apply the GPL to someone else's
code, I don't see the harm.
It also has nothing at all to do with "open source".
Open Source is merely the recognition that there are occasionally
genuine economic incentives to "free" software in the RMS sense.
Stallman may not care--more likely he outright resents it--but it's yet
another point ignored or even obfuscated by Open Source critics.
-thant
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <uektitanu.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:59:54 -0700, Thant Tessman ("Thant") writes:
Thant> Not sure what you think this should imply about the morality
Thant> of the GPL by itself, independent of the issues of whether
Thant> some software may or may not have been legitimately placed
Thant> under it.
I never said that it did - you are making a straw-man.
I was responding to the idealistic/ideological suggestion that
free software arose as an example of "rabid libertariansm", when
the facts point more towards a genesis in pure state socialism.
Personally, I'm a user and minor contributor of free software,
and in some ways am very happy about that. But my implied message
is that the naive socio-economic models postulated by the "free
software movement" may be based on myths.
It's also annoying to me to hear misrepresentations of historical
events, situations, and imagined "hacker ethics" at the lab used
to bolster political movements. (Similar to the revisionist history
implied in the "New Hacker's Dictionary".) Also, I think the cults
associated with the free software movement are detrimental to making
credible social progress in the needed areas of legal reform.
I certainly don't claim to have the answers, just some historical
insights and experiences that go beyond what most people in the field
seem to be indoctrinated with.
Thant> Yes, but unless a free software nut can apply the GPL
Thant> to someone else's code, I don't see the harm.
I believe that it's certainly a good thing that people
can use copyright law to license their software.
If they want to use the GPL, that's their right.
However, I don't think that as a social mechanism,
the GPL generally empowers programmers as a class.
Thant> Open Source is merely the recognition that there are
Thant> occasionally genuine economic incentives to "free" software in
Thant> the RMS sense. Stallman may not care--more likely he outright
Thant> resents it--but it's yet another point ignored or even
Thant> obfuscated by Open Source critics.
"Open source" historically means only that you have the source code
for your system, probably with the right to not only inspect, but to
make improvements that you might need. The idea is to not be at the
total mercy of the software vendor. It does not say anything about
what licesning arrangement this might be done under, and doesn't
necessarily imply so-called "free" (that is, "encumbered") software.
For example, the commercial Lisp Machine was delivered to customers
with almost every file of source code for the entire system (OS and
applications), so that customers could make any changes they needed.
This was all part of the package - it came licensed this way along
with the binaries when you purchased a (hardware) system. But you
were not allowed to steal the source code and use it for some other
purpose or give it away; it was protected both by copyright and the
trade secret part of the license.
Perhaps nowadays people have co-opted the term "open source",
much as the word "free" or "hacker" have been perverted.
I still like the original meanings, but I'm probably an
anachronistic old fart of a hacker.
I say, Fight The Real Enemy: the software patent system that
too easily grants monopolies whose scope is too broad and
whose duration is more than an order of magnitude too long.
The current practice is antithetical to the spirit and goals
of the laws protecting intellectual property, badly distorting
the markets of both innovation and commerce to the detriment
of both society and individual contributors.
I haven't really seen any progress at all on the real problems.
Perhaps that's because society has been duped into thinking that
"free software" is solving the problems.
And this will be my last post on the subject, because I'm afraid
that this is going to turn into another of the endless free-software
flame fests, and I really don't have anything else to say.
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> I was responding to the idealistic/ideological suggestion that
> free software arose as an example of "rabid libertariansm", when
> the facts point more towards a genesis in pure state socialism.
I did not mean to imply that I thought the free software movement arose
out of rabid libertarian motivations. Maybe I wasn't very clear, but
what I meant was that even as a rabid libertarian I couldn't object to
the voluntary and property-rights-respecting nature of the GPL despite
any objection I may have with any utopian delusions motivating its creation.
[...]
-thant
"Christopher C. Stacy" <······@news.dtpq.com> wrote in message
··················@news.dtpq.com...
> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:59:54 -0700, Thant Tessman ("Thant") writes:
> Thant> Not sure what you think this should imply about the morality
> Thant> of the GPL by itself, independent of the issues of whether
> Thant> some software may or may not have been legitimately placed
> Thant> under it.
>
> I never said that it did - you are making a straw-man.
> I was responding to the idealistic/ideological suggestion that
> free software arose as an example of "rabid libertariansm", when
> the facts point more towards a genesis in pure state socialism.
Touche'. The hacker subculture arose in a totally subsidized environment,
where people didn't have to pay for their own computers. Basically a
student environment.
> Personally, I'm a user and minor contributor of free software,
> and in some ways am very happy about that.
Me too. (LaTeX; two packages on CTAN; sundry other pieces of freeware over
the years.)
> (Similar to the revisionist history
> implied in the "New Hacker's Dictionary".)
Can you elaborate? An informed critique of their historiography would be
interesting.
> I say, Fight The Real Enemy: the software patent system that
> too easily grants monopolies whose scope is too broad and
> whose duration is more than an order of magnitude too long.
Exactly. They are simply bad patents. Most software patents are simply not
what patents were intended to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Michael A. Covington, Associate Director
Artificial Intelligence Center, The University of Georgia
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> the facts point more towards a genesis in pure state socialism.
I wish you wouldn't use that word. Yes, free software is based on
sharing, and on 'from each according to ability, to each according to
need', which can be seen as socialist ideals. But "state socialism"
is connotated with totalitarian regimes, dictatorships and police
states, and in particular in the US, with the Enemy (much like
"terrorist" nowadays), and that has nothing to do with free software.
Anyway, since the government is funding research anyway, I think it is
only fair that the public footing the bill gets the results in an
equal, non-discriminatory manner.
> Personally, I'm a user and minor contributor of free software,
> and in some ways am very happy about that. But my implied message
> is that the naive socio-economic models postulated by the "free
> software movement" may be based on myths.
Which socio-economic models would that be? I'm not an economist by
far, but when I read about it, I thought it was fairly obvious that
software in general constitute an almost perfect natural monopoly, and
can be seen as a public good. (Production cost may be high, but
marginal cost is zero. Distribution doesn't diminish the value.)
The patent issues only serve to cement the monopolies further, by not
only making commercial alternatives economically difficult, but also
free alternatives impossible.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Ketil Malde <·····@ii.uib.no> writes:
> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>
>> the facts point more towards a genesis in pure state socialism.
>
> I wish you wouldn't use that word. Yes, free software is based on
> sharing, and on 'from each according to ability, to each according to
> need', which can be seen as socialist ideals. But "state socialism"
Well that is a failed ideology. And GPL software is based on forced
sharing not good intent.
> is connotated with totalitarian regimes, dictatorships and police
> states, and in particular in the US, with the Enemy (much like
> "terrorist" nowadays), and that has nothing to do with free software.
With good reason. And it does apply to GPLed software, which is not
free.
> Anyway, since the government is funding research anyway, I think it is
> only fair that the public footing the bill gets the results in an
> equal, non-discriminatory manner.
Yes that is what public domain is for, everybody can do what they
want with it. This includes add features and sell it while not
being forced to give away their property(the changes)
marc
In comp.lang.functional Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> [...] And GPL software is based on forced sharing not good intent.
Who is forcing you to use GPLed software?
-Vesa Karvonen
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <u4qud8ao5.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
>>>>> On 30 Jan 2004 08:07:46 +0100, Ketil Malde ("Ketil") writes:
Ketil> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>> the facts point more towards a genesis in pure state socialism.
Ketil> I wish you wouldn't use that word.
If you improved your reading comprehension,
perhaps you would not be so much afraid of words.
Ketil> Yes, free software is based on sharing, and on 'from each
Ketil> according to ability, to each according to need', which can be
Ketil> seen as socialist ideals. But "state socialism" is connotated
Ketil> with totalitarian regimes, dictatorships and police states,
Ketil> and in particular in the US, with the Enemy (much like
Ketil> "terrorist" nowadays), and that has nothing to do with free
Ketil> software.
I was referring to the part where the federal government collected
money from citizens at the point of a gun, and gave that money to
RMS (and myself, by the way) to write software. I was contrasting
that reality to the statement that such alleged roots of "hacker
ethic" or "free software" was an example of "rabid libertarianism".
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> [...] I was contrasting
> that reality to the statement that such alleged roots of "hacker
> ethic" or "free software" was an example of "rabid libertarianism".
Which as I pointed out elsewhere was not the statement I intended to make.
-thant
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <usmhx6va8.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:16:48 -0700, Thant Tessman ("Thant") writes:
Thant> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>> [...] I was contrasting
>> that reality to the statement that such alleged roots of "hacker
>> ethic" or "free software" was an example of "rabid libertarianism".
Thant> Which as I pointed out elsewhere was not the statement I intended to make.
Yes.
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:47:40 +0000, Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> But my implied message
> is that the naive socio-economic models postulated by the "free
> software movement" may be based on myths.
As it's relatively hard to run controlled experiments in the social
sciences, all you have to go on is the accumulated body of knowledge.
Sometimes these include myths. However, you can't be certain that they
are myths until you actually try them. The one thing you can say about
the Free Software movement is that it's a relatively small experiment and
doesn't force anyone's active involvement (except for possible collateral
damage caused to the proprietary sphere).
But then, maybe I've become a bit jaded in my evaluation of these
experiments, because I also believe that the whole Globalization thing is
the biggest social science experiment ever carried out on a huge set of
people having very little choice in the matter (or maybe they, too, are
simply collateral damage).
In fact, I find it easier to believe that the Free Software experiment
will come to a good outcome. That's because I have a hard time
believing that a system whose highest goal is efficiency and whose guiding
moral principle is self-interest can lead to anything other than eventual
collapse and a return to the law of the jungle. But then, I guess that's
just a failure of my imagination.
In any case, I'm certain that the Free Software movement will cause less
collateral damage and I've always been a proponent of Hippocrates' precept
from his Epidemics, Bk.I, Sect. XI:
"...make a habit of two things - to help, or at least to do no harm."
So it goes...
faa
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>
> Most (if not all) of the software that RMS has developed was paid
...
This converation is getting extremely off-topic on these lists.
Of course, the orignal posting was off-topic too and on three lists
at the same time. We should stop now.
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> Most (if not all) of the software that RMS has developed was paid
> for entirely, or heavily subsidized by, the federal Government.
> Everything he did before FSF was wholly funded by the DOD,
> and the last time I looked, he was still using laboratory
> and office space at MIT that's paid for by federal grants.
I suspect it's been a long time since you last looked.
They're not even in Cambridge any more (and haven't been for
a while):
Free Software Foundation Voice: +1-617-542-5942
59 Temple Place - Suite 330 Fax: +1-617-542-2652
Boston MA 02111-1307 USA E-Mail: ···@gnu.org
Before that they were in Kendall Square, which is near MIT,
but appears to be private office buildings. (I'm a West Coaster,
so I don't know Cambridge, but I was recently in the Kendall
Square area.)
> The "patent" issue came about because he was infuriated that
> they would not allow him to join their company, and would
> not "share" their improvements with the competing companies
> that he was affiliated with.
I don't see how that has anything to do with patents - it was a
copyright issue.
--
--Per Bothner
···@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <uwu796vpz.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:57:44 GMT, Per Bothner ("Per") writes:
Per> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>> Most (if not all) of the software that RMS has developed was paid
>> for entirely, or heavily subsidized by, the federal Government.
>> Everything he did before FSF was wholly funded by the DOD, and the
>> last time I looked, he was still using laboratory and office space
>> at MIT that's paid for by federal grants.
Per> I suspect it's been a long time since you last looked.
Per> They're not even in Cambridge any more (and haven't been for a while):
I looked as recently as a few months ago, and I can assure
you that you are not in posession of the full facts.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <k7399mpp.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:57:44 GMT, Per Bothner ("Per") writes:
>
> Per> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> >> Most (if not all) of the software that RMS has developed was paid
> >> for entirely, or heavily subsidized by, the federal Government.
> >> Everything he did before FSF was wholly funded by the DOD, and the
> >> last time I looked, he was still using laboratory and office space
> >> at MIT that's paid for by federal grants.
>
> Per> I suspect it's been a long time since you last looked.
> Per> They're not even in Cambridge any more (and haven't been for a while):
>
> I looked as recently as a few months ago, and I can assure
> you that you are not in posession of the full facts.
I checked yesterday. RMS is still on the 4th floor.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <ubrol6t5k.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:59:46 -0500, Joe Marshall ("Joe") writes:
Joe> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:57:44 GMT, Per Bothner ("Per") writes:
>>
Per> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>> >> Most (if not all) of the software that RMS has developed was paid
>> >> for entirely, or heavily subsidized by, the federal Government.
>> >> Everything he did before FSF was wholly funded by the DOD, and the
>> >> last time I looked, he was still using laboratory and office space
>> >> at MIT that's paid for by federal grants.
>>
Per> I suspect it's been a long time since you last looked.
Per> They're not even in Cambridge any more (and haven't been for a while):
>>
>> I looked as recently as a few months ago, and I can assure
>> you that you are not in posession of the full facts.
Joe> I checked yesterday. RMS is still on the 4th floor.
In all this, my real point is that the "free" software system does not
seem to be empowering programmers in the context of our capitalistic
society -- it might be even be disempowering them. So I wish people
would focus more directly on the software patent issue.
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
[...]
> In all this, my real point is that the "free" software system does
> not seem to be empowering programmers in the context of our
> capitalistic society -- it might be even be disempowering them.
Talk of programmers as a class is doomed to lead to silliness.
> So I wish people would focus more directly on the software patent
> issue.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than
all others of exclusive property, it is the action of
the thinking power called an idea, which an individual
may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself;
but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess
himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no
one possesses the less, because every other possesses the
whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives
instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening
me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another
over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of
man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been
peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she
made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without
lessening their density at any point, and like the air in
which we breathe, move, and have our physical being,
incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of
property."
--Thomas Jefferson
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <uhdydw06w.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
«Thant Tessman» skribis:
>[...]
>
> "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than
> all others of exclusive property, it is the action of
> the thinking power called an idea, which an individual
> may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself;
> but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
> possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess
> himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no
> one possesses the less, because every other possesses the
> whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives
> instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
> lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening
> me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another
> over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of
> man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been
> peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she
> made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without
> lessening their density at any point, and like the air in
> which we breathe, move, and have our physical being,
> incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
> Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of
> property."
>
> --Thomas Jefferson
By that quotation, was Thomas Jefferson anti-copyright, or anti-patent, or
both? To me the quotation seems to be describing just copyright, until it
mentions inventions in the last sentence.
"William J. Lamar" <··@NOSPAMverizon.net> writes:
>> "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than
>> all others of exclusive property, it is the action of
>> the thinking power called an idea, which an individual
> > may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself;
> > but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
> > possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess
> > himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no
> > one possesses the less, because every other possesses the
> > whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives
> > instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
> > lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening
> > me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another
> > over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of
> > man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been
> > peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she
> > made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without
> > lessening their density at any point, and like the air in
> > which we breathe, move, and have our physical being,
> > incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
> > Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of
> > property."
> By that quotation, was Thomas Jefferson anti-copyright, or anti-patent, or
> both? To me the quotation seems to be describing just copyright, until it
> mentions inventions in the last sentence.
Why? Copyright covers particular expressions of an idea, not the idea
itself. I don't think you could say that a novel, "forces itself into
the possession of everyone", but the ideas in it might.
It's not clear to me that he's anti- any of the above either; while he
considers the ability of ideas to spread is benevolent, the point of
patents was originally to promote the spread of ideas.
(He would probably be against patents the way they are becoming, but
who isn't?)
>> Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
^^^^^^^^^
Christopher C. Stacy adds:
> Is that like Hitler?
Again, why? You may or may not accept Jefferson as an authority, but
I think what he says here is fairly self-evident, at least if you read
it as descriptive, rather than normative.
Some (indeed most) countries -- one might call them socialist, were it
not such an emotionally laden and vaguely defined term -- have chosen
to create artificial limitations on the spread of ideas and other
intellectual "property", and are enforcing this at gunpoint.
Currently, it seems the internet combined with digitization of
copyrighted works is making the spread of those as unrestricted as the
spread of ideas was in Jefferson's day. So we see both increased
illegal distribution, and sharpening of the gun point.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <usmhwh37s.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
>>>>> On 31 Jan 2004 08:39:37 +0100, Ketil Malde ("Ketil") writes:
>> Is that like Hitler?
Ketil> Again, why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
«Ketil Malde» skribis:
> It's not clear to me that he's anti- any of the above either;
#ifdef DISAGREEMENT
What about where Jefferson says «He who receives an idea from me, receives
instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at
mine, receives light without darkening me.»?
To me, this is either a variation of, or the original source of, the common
anti-copyright argument which goes like: «When someone recieves a copy of a
work, the work's author's copy is not lost or dimished. Therefore there is
no need for the work's author to be compensated. Therefore, there is no
need for laws which allow one to require compensation (copyright laws).».
#endif
"William J. Lamar" <··@NOSPAMverizon.net> writes:
> To me, this is either a variation of, or the original source of, the common
> anti-copyright argument which goes like: «When someone recieves a copy of a
> work, the work's author's copy is not lost or dimished.
Yes, it's fairly similar. IMHO, there is a difference between an idea
(which Jefferson talks about), and copyrighted expressions of ideas.
> Therefore there is no need for the work's author to be
> compensated. Therefore, there is no need for laws which allow one to
> require compensation (copyright laws).».
My point was that while Jefferson may for all I know have held that
opinion, he doesn't go on to say that. You could equally well go on
to say "Since there is a need to compensate authors/inventors, it is
necessary to have laws which ensures the right to compensation".
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:59:46 -0500, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>
>> Most (if not all) of the software that RMS has developed was paid
>> for entirely, or heavily subsidized by, the federal Government.
>> Everything he did before FSF was wholly funded by the DOD, and the
>> last time I looked, he was still using laboratory and office space
>> at MIT that's paid for by federal grants.
>
> [...]
>
> I checked yesterday. RMS is still on the 4th floor.
Just out of curiosity: Does anybody know by what kind of arrangement
he's able to be there? (I suspect he's not employed by the MIT
anymore.) I had to leave university after finishing my doctorate when
my contract ran out and even if had really wished to stay there and
continue to use their equipment they wouldn't have let me.
Thanks,
Edi.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <u7jz96suu.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:09:35 +0100, Edi Weitz ("Edi") writes:
Edi> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:59:46 -0500, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>>
>>> Most (if not all) of the software that RMS has developed was paid
>>> for entirely, or heavily subsidized by, the federal Government.
>>> Everything he did before FSF was wholly funded by the DOD, and the
>>> last time I looked, he was still using laboratory and office space
>>> at MIT that's paid for by federal grants.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I checked yesterday. RMS is still on the 4th floor.
Edi> Just out of curiosity: Does anybody know by what kind of arrangement
Edi> he's able to be there? (I suspect he's not employed by the MIT
Edi> anymore.) I had to leave university after finishing my doctorate when
Edi> my contract ran out and even if had really wished to stay there and
Edi> continue to use their equipment they wouldn't have let me.
One or more professors at the lab have always felt that the work that
RMS does is important, and after he resigned, they have always continued
to provide him with resources (office/lab space) that he needs.
Edi Weitz <···@agharta.de> writes:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:59:46 -0500, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
>> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>>
>>> Most (if not all) of the software that RMS has developed was paid
>>> for entirely, or heavily subsidized by, the federal Government.
>>> Everything he did before FSF was wholly funded by the DOD, and the
>>> last time I looked, he was still using laboratory and office space
>>> at MIT that's paid for by federal grants.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I checked yesterday. RMS is still on the 4th floor.
>
> Just out of curiosity: Does anybody know by what kind of arrangement
> he's able to be there? (I suspect he's not employed by the MIT
> anymore.) I had to leave university after finishing my doctorate when
> my contract ran out and even if had really wished to stay there and
> continue to use their equipment they wouldn't have let me.
That's funny. Having just "finished" my doctorate, I have
nevertheless been assured that there will be a reasonable provision of
facilities should I need them (technically I'm currently still a
student, but I expect to graduate in a couple of months or so). At
least in the UK at least for the time being, the problem for academic
institutions seems not to be desk space, but funding; as such,
allowing ex-students to use facilities of relatively low marginal cost
(with the possibility of acknowledgment in academic work) seems to be
a win-win situation.
Christophe
--
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
In comp.lang.scheme Thant Tessman <·····@acm.org> wrote:
>
> I don't know which article you guys are talking about, but the Mathias
> Strasser article is a thorougly confused piece of paranoid nonsense even
> granting the above. It's difficult to narrow down the criticism this
> article deserves, but it's worth pointing out that he's arguing as if we
> were somehow forced to make an absolute choise between all software
> being proprietary and all software being open source--as if it was
> somehow a fundamental contradiction for both to exist in this world at
> the same time. He seems to find it inconceivable that programmers
> themselves should decide how their code is to be treated as intellectual
> property.
Have you ever talked to RMS in person? Do you *know* what his response has
been the couple of times somebody inerviewed him and it turned out that the
result would not be available under a fsf approved licence?
Your response is similar to telling the Saudi Arabian religious police that
everybody has a choice whetever to follow the Sharia laws derived from Koran
or not. What you are missing is that there are in fact people who very
much want to stamp out all software that isnot covered by a strong copyleft
licence. This very much includes publicly saying that the licence is not a
matter of choice the programmer can make.
>
> -thant
>
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Sander Vesik wrote:
> [...] What you are missing is that there are in fact people who very
> much want to stamp out all software that isnot covered by a strong copyleft
> licence. This very much includes publicly saying that the licence is not a
> matter of choice the programmer can make.
The GPL will not stamp out "closed source" regardless of RMS's actual
intention when he invented it. All it does is offer code owners (i.e.
people who write code, or who paid others to write code) a
non-conventional form of payment for the code they own.
-thant
In comp.lang.scheme Thant Tessman <·····@acm.org> wrote:
> Sander Vesik wrote:
>
> > [...] What you are missing is that there are in fact people who very
> > much want to stamp out all software that isnot covered by a strong copyleft
> > licence. This very much includes publicly saying that the licence is not a
> > matter of choice the programmer can make.
>
> The GPL will not stamp out "closed source" regardless of RMS's actual
> intention when he invented it. All it does is offer code owners (i.e.
> people who write code, or who paid others to write code) a
> non-conventional form of payment for the code they own.
GPL is simply a tool. What would/could do the stamping out to an extent
would be "embrace and extend" tactics with well-defined and popular apis
implemented in GPL licenced libraries.
>
> -thant
>
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Sander Vesik wrote:
> In comp.lang.scheme Thant Tessman <·····@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>Sander Vesik wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[...] What you are missing is that there are in fact people who very
>>>much want to stamp out all software that isnot covered by a strong copyleft
>>>licence. This very much includes publicly saying that the licence is not a
>>>matter of choice the programmer can make.
>>
>>The GPL will not stamp out "closed source" regardless of RMS's actual
>>intention when he invented it. All it does is offer code owners (i.e.
>>people who write code, or who paid others to write code) a
>>non-conventional form of payment for the code they own.
>
>
> GPL is simply a tool. What would/could do the stamping out to an extent
> would be "embrace and extend" tactics with well-defined and popular apis
> implemented in GPL licenced libraries.
This is backwards. The economic value of Open Source is exactly in its
ability to *thwart* embrace-and-extend tactics. There are individuals
and companies that have an incentive to develop and support standards in
such a way as to prevent others from hijacking those standards in a
unilaterally advantageous way EVEN IF it means foregoing their own
privilege to do the same. That's why and when Open Source works.
And this doesn't mean that all of a sudden the various economic
incentives of proprietary software disappear. It might shuffle them
around a bit (in a way that can only benefit consumers) but it won't
make them disappear.
-thant
Sander Vesik <······@haldjas.folklore.ee> writes:
> In comp.lang.scheme Thant Tessman <·····@acm.org> wrote:
> licence. This very much includes publicly saying that the licence is not a
> matter of choice the programmer can make.
Just to split hairs the programmer is not the person who can determine
license, the *owner* does. And many times they are the same person.
marc
In comp.lang.scheme Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> Sander Vesik <······@haldjas.folklore.ee> writes:
>
> > In comp.lang.scheme Thant Tessman <·····@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > licence. This very much includes publicly saying that the licence is not a
> > matter of choice the programmer can make.
>
> Just to split hairs the programmer is not the person who can determine
> license, the *owner* does. And many times they are the same person.
Right. That doesn't change the essence a view of limited / no choice in
licence to apply to software being created.
>
> marc
>
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Feuer wrote:
>
> Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>
> > I have another reason why I consider Xah a troll:
Xah is most definitely not a troll. Unique, yes. troll, no. What he says
(however unique) he says in good faith. So do not try to dismiss what he
shared on that ground.
I dismiss it on these gorunds: ok, fads, so what? Life is short. Do
great things (with computers if you like). So what if the Great Unwashed
chase fads? Let them eat Python.
kenny
--
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"[If anyone really has healing powers,] I would like to call
them about my knees."
-- Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama
Joachim Durchholz <·················@web.de> wrote:
+---------------
| But there aren't many alternatives. (Well, sendmail is finally getting
| cleaned up - sort of, anyway... and alternatives are being developed.
+---------------
Uh... Developed some time ago. Try PostFix <URL:http://www.postfix.org/>.
+---------------
| The mySql criticism page is being reworked, supposedly to incorporate
| recent improvements in mySql. Things are cleaning up - somewhat.)
+---------------
Try PostgreSQL <URL:http://www.postgresql.org>.
-Rob
[Happy user of both PostFix & PostgreSQL]
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: Joachim Durchholz
Subject: Re: articles debunking computing fads and myths
Date:
Message-ID: <bvbhjr$mrm$2@news.oberberg.net>
Rob Warnock wrote:
> Joachim Durchholz <·················@web.de> wrote:
> +---------------
> | But there aren't many alternatives. (Well, sendmail is finally getting
> | cleaned up - sort of, anyway... and alternatives are being developed.
> +---------------
>
> Uh... Developed some time ago. Try PostFix <URL:http://www.postfix.org/>.
I meant to say: "Were developed and are still being improved."
Sorry for being imprecise - I've been so busy configuring exim that I
took common Unix knowledge to be common general knowledge :-)
Regards,
Jo
--
Currently looking for a new job.
"Brandon J. Van Every" <·····························@yahoo.com> wrote in
message ···················@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Christian Szegedy wrote:
> >> harmful myths and baseless creeds are continuously spread by
> >> youngster sites like slashdot.com by the unix crowd, and also books
> >> the likes of Unix Philisophy, sometimes innocently by guys like Eric
> >> Raymond, and sometimes sinisterly by guys like Linus Torvald, Larry
> >> Wall, Tom Christiansen who unscrupulously promote themselves.
> >
> > You are a troll.
>
> He expressed his opinion, you seem to have a problem with it.
>
hmm, you are spreading to more groups now it seems...
on comp.distributed and comp.lang.misc I made yet another post obsessing on
net protocols, and most likely no one will care. otherwise I am not feeling
very confident right now...
···@xahlee.org (Xah Lee) writes:
> * Olin Shivers on the ills of unix shells, in his scsh intro
> http://www.scsh.net/docu/scsh-paper/scsh-paper-Z-H-1.html
Hmm, if you want to add Shivers to your list then you should surely
add "Lambda: the Ultimate Little Language". It is a creed against
writing yet another "little" language along the lines of make, find,
awk, perl, grep, sed, etc. etc., and instead writing a library in a
sufficiently high-level language. I find myself citing it all the
time when I get in design arguments.
It's even on topic for comp.lang.functional.
> * Unix-Hater's handbook by Simson Garfinkel, Daniel Weise, Steven
> Strassmann, Don Hopkins. 1994.
> http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf.
This one has some interesting stuff, but some of it is just ranting.
It is also fairly long. I don't know if this would be a good thing on
a list for impatient youngins.
-Lex