ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   05 Apr 2001  17:11:46
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://lwn.net/2001/0405/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] 
    
                                [2]Click Here 
    [LWN.net]
    
    Sections:
     [3]Main page
     [4]Security
     [5]Kernel
     [6]Distributions
     [7]On the Desktop
     [8]Development
     [9]Commerce
     [10]Linux in the news
     [11]Announcements
     [12]Linux History
     Letters
    [13]All in one big page
    
    See also: [14]last week's Letters page.
    
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [15]letters@lwn.net.
    Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
    well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
    way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
    anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
    April 5, 2001
    
    
 From: "Leather, sean P" <Sean.Leather@MW.Boeing.com>
 To: "'letters@lwn.net'" <letters@lwn.net>
 Subject: Three years ... and still counting!
 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:12:00 -0600
 
 Dear LWN,
 
 I was very excited to see your article on Mozilla and how that project has
 significantly improved.
 
 In the weeks before this issue, I had researched Bugzilla (Mozilla's
 web-based bug-tracking software) for use in a local setting. At first
 download, I tested it out and, to my dismay, found an obvious bug.
 Disappointed but not without hope (in the open-source philosophy), I logged
 into the real Bugzilla to report my first bug.
 
 As I was about to submit my report, a certain florescent light bulb went off
 above me (i.e. the lights went out ... several times, but, fortunately, the
 electricity stayed on): somebody else may have already sent in such a
 report. So I queried. Somebody, actually several people, had already
 reported it. Then I searched more and found a long discussion on the best
 methods for squashing this particular insect-like problem.
 
 It appeared as if three or four hackers had been submitting patches while
 others conjectured about each. After each new patch was submitted, there
 were less "I like this, but..." statements made. With this, I could read
 through the steps of how a bug was fixed. I thought to myself: this is how
 it should be, this is Open Source.
 
 Cheesy though that thought is, my spirits were lifted (no, that does not
 mean I was drinking). I realized that open-source software is where all the
 action is (meaning inter-action). It also dawned on me that Mozilla has put
 together a darn good collection of open-source projects that even facilitate
 other open-source projects (Bugzilla, Bonsai, Tinderbox, etc.).
 
 To say the least, I was impressed with not only Mozilla's software, but also
 their methodology. Even though their programmers may not write the panacea
 of programs or the code that solves every problem the first time (believe
 me, I found several other bugs), they resolve their problems with expediency
 unfound in most places.
 
 Then I downloaded the latest "unstable" version and returned to my work.
 Fortunately, it fixed all the bugs I had found and then some.
 
 On a side note, if a user cannot have this kind of communication and
 interaction with a developer, that person (who may see a solution right away
 like I did) cannot propose the kind of answer or question that may be
 needed. For example, a certain well-known large company that recently
 announced the "release" of their source to other certain large companies
 will not profit from the true benefits of open-source development.
 
 The moral of the story is: "learn from the best, or die like the rest."
 
 Yours truly,
 Sean
 
  -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Sean Leather                    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Cooperative Education Employee  . Sean.P.Leather@Boeing.com .
    Simulation Networking R & D     .                           .
    The Boeing Company              . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  -----------------------------------------------------------------
 
    
 From: Richard Kay <rich@copsewood.net>
 Subject: Re: [16]http://www.redpepper.org.uk/x-open-source.html
 A World Without Microsoft
 To: scott.redding@virgin.net
 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:49:46 +0100 (BST)
 
 Thanks for this on-line article. Software network economics have more to
 do with the "chaordic" form of organisation than anarchism. You will
 find some relevant articles about this on [17]http://www.chaordic.org/
 
 While the "chaordic" term was coined relatively recently it covers
 structures which are not entirely new. The shape of such an organisation
 is fractal and not heirarchical, where the information needed to replicate
 the entire organisation is present in small parts of it and it exists
 on many levels.  A chaordic entity is capable of refining information.
 Here the chaotic patterns and experiments of creative change are balanced
 against there being just sufficient order to enable the entity to
 function coherently without centralised control, other than through
 the shared guiding principles which underpin the existence of the
 organisation.
 
 This chaordic form of organisation is present in natural languages,
 traditional markets, the telephone system and more recently the VISA
 and Internet networks.
 
 In the case of open-source/free software the unifying principle behind this
 movement is the benefit gained from the sharing of computer source code.
 Does it matter that this benefit is partly moral and political and partly
 practical ?
 
 In your otherwise excellent and balanced article Heather Sharp writes:
 
 "It is the opposition between the pragmatic and the idealistic/libertarian
 rationales which now threatens to split the movement."
 
 I must disagree, because you might as well talk about splitting
 the Internet itself or the telephone network, because not everyone
 who uses these things agrees with everyone else. These ideas are
 non-starters and seem based on fundamental misconceptions based on
 a complete lack of technical understanding.
 
 Given that software once made available to the free software/open source
 pool cannot be taken out of it, the benefit is greater than the loss if 2
 development groups go off and create competing programs or promotional
 initiatives, as they sometimes do, because no differences of
 opinion on technical or ideological issues can prevent the best software
 from migrating between these groups unless they deny to themselves the
 evolutionary advantages of wheel-reinvention avoidance and open public review
 and contribution which derives from code sharing in the first place. If
 one part or another of this movement denies to themselves these benefits
 they are no longer part of a movement which derives from no more than
 these benefits in the first place. Consequently a movement based on
 this definition cannot be divided QED.
 
 If the free software/open source movement were a form of organisation which
 required heirarchical relationships to function as such and were incapable of
 otherwise effectively coordinating activities led through the contribution
 of many centres, organisations and individuals this kind of perspective
 difference might be capable of dividing rather than strengthening our
 movement. But if this were so we would be unable to offer any
 genuinely revolutionary perspective or possibilities in any case.
 
 Richard Kay
 rich@copsewood.net
 
    
 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 06:58:11 -0600 (MDT)
 From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
 To: rich@copsewood.net
 Subject: Re: [18] http://www.redpepper.org.uk/x-open-source.html
 A World Without Microsoft
 
     In your otherwise excellent and balanced article Heather Sharp writes:
 
     "It is the opposition between the pragmatic and the idealistic/libertarian
     rationales which now threatens to split the movement."
 
 The mistake is in the phrase "threaten to".  This is half wrong, and
 half wrong.
 
 Philosophically, the disagreements between views like mine and views
 like Eric Raymond are so large that we should not be considered one
 movement.  But these disagreements are nothing new--we have disagreed
 in this way for 15 years or more.  It is too late for them to
 "threaten" to cause a split; whatever splitting they are going to
 cause has already happened.
 
 At the same time, we remain one community, still working together much
 of the time despite these philosophical disagreements.  I see no sign
 that our disagreements threaten the community's overall state of
 cooperation.  Of course, it is not perfect cooperation, but perfection
 is too much to ask.
 
 I have not seen the article you refer to, and I am not sure where it was
 published.  Could you possibly mail me a copy, and perhaps tell me
 how to send email to its author?
    
 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:18:46 -0400
 From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>
 To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
 Subject: Re: [19]http://www.redpepper.org.uk/x-open-source.html
 A World Without Microsoft
 
 Richard, I wrote the following in response to the article.  I'm glad we
 broadly agree on the extent to which the article exagerrates the divisions.
 
 >Way too much of this article is breathless nonsense, beginning with
 >the claim that "the community is cracking along its ideological
 >faultlines".  The fatuity of this claim is demonstrated by the fact
 >that even the most extreme partisans of both tendencies Ms. Sharp
 >describes still share code and use each others' licenses, and show no
 >signs that they will ever cease to do so.
 >
 >Throughout the article, Ms. Sharp ascribes to hackers motivations that
 >most of us would find either irrelevant or repugnant. Among us, the
 >act and the the personal rewards of craftsmanship easily trump
 >politics and other toxic social games.  Her proposal that we are "a
 >living alternative to the individualism of the average big-buck
 >business environment" is particularly ironic, since we generally
 >regard ourselves and behave as individualists par excellence, and
 >reject the corporate world precisely for its deliberate suppression of
 >that quality.  Reflexive leftist cant has blinded her to what is
 >actually going on here.
 >
 >Ms. Sharp's "there is a strand to the thinking of the more radical
 >sections of the Open Source community which could be classed as
 >libertarian" is an amusing instance of the same blindness.  One of the
 >few points of agreement between libertarians like myself and
 >anti-libertarians like Paulina Borsook (the author of "Cyber-Selfish")
 >is that libertarian thinking and values are not merely a "strand" but
 >all-pervasive in the hacker culture.  The issues hacker activism has
 >themed itself on (privacy, free speech rights, access to strong
 >cryptography, DeCSS) are libertarian/individualist at their core, and
 >our behavior is far more simply explained by reference to libertarian
 >ideals of individualism and autonomy than through Ms. Sharp's
 >distorting lens of categories like "neo-colonialism".
 >
 >Political categories aside, in the last paragraph Ms. Sharp pulls a
 >clever bit of ambiguity that confuses a major collision of world-views
 >with a minor and relatively superficial factional dispute.  The gulf
 >between the proprietary world and the open-source/free-software
 >community is vastly more important to all parties involved than the
 >relatively insignificant differences between the idealists and
 >pragmatists within our community.  Indeed, by exaggerating the
 >importance of the latter division, Ms. Sharp plays into the hands of
 >Microsoft and the proprietary-softeware behemoths.
 >
 >Fortunately, Ms. Sharp's misconceptions matter very little.  However
 >much theory and rhetoric may superficially divide the hacker culture,
 >practice fundamentally unites us.  We may argue with each other about
 >why we do what we do, but we'll keep doing it together nevertheless --
 >and that propaganda of the deed, that ongoing and successful co-option
 >of the infrastructure of 21st-century society, will be far more
 >important in changing the world than any amount of rhetorical vaporing
 >by Richard Stallman or myself or anybody else.
 
 --
                 <a href="[20]http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
 
 "...The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First
 Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the
 government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet. The
 Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms
 until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you
 have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI
 agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no
 right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances."
         -- Harry Browne, 1996 USA presidential candidate, Libertarian Party
 
    
    
                                                                          
    
    [21]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2001 [22]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://ads.tucows.com/click.ng/pageid=pageid=132-000-001-001
    3. http://lwn.net/2001/0405/
    4. http://lwn.net/2001/0405/security.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2001/0405/kernel.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2001/0405/dists.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2001/0405/desktop.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2001/0405/devel.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2001/0405/commerce.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2001/0405/press.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2001/0405/announce.php3
   12. http://lwn.net/2001/0405/history.php3
   13. http://lwn.net/2001/0405/bigpage.php3
   14. http://lwn.net/2001/0321/letters.php3
   15. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   16. http://www.redpepper.org.uk/x-open-source.html
   17. http://www.chaordic.org/
   18. http://www.redpepper.org.uk/x-open-source.html
   19. http://www.redpepper.org.uk/x-open-source.html
   20. http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/
   21. http://www.eklektix.com/
   22. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор