

Miguel de Icaza responds to latest RMS article - michael_h
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Oct-05.html

======
davidw
I like the Linus view: free software is more fun, and better, and so on, so
I'll work on that. It concentrates on the positive, rather than saying I want
to avoid nasty closed software and telling other people what they should and
should not do. Linus also seems like a much happier guy.

~~~
andreyf
But that's a very different point. Stallman sees proprietary software as a
violation of fundamental freedoms, like slavery is a violation of fundamental
freedoms.

 _Linus also seems like a much happier guy._

Judging an idea based on how happy those who believe it are seems like a
dangerous heuristic.

~~~
axod
>> "Stallman sees proprietary software as a violation of fundamental freedoms,
like slavery is a violation of fundamental freedoms."

See this is the insane part. How can anyone believe that? No one forces you to
use their proprietary software. If you don't like proprietary software, write
your own equivalent software and use that. (Of course these days it's
sometimes hard to get your own software onto devices, but rarely is it
impossible).

~~~
omouse
Actually, thanks to market forces and monopolies of various sorts, you _are_
eventually forced to use proprietary software. The example someone else gave
was Microsoft Office file formats.

Here's a better example: almost all webdesign, graphic design, and other jobs
of that type want you to have experience in Adobe products. So what ends up
happening is that because people want the jobs, they learn Photoshop. Now it
may be a great program, but it's still proprietary and you get locked into
Adobe's upgrade cycle because the latest version is The Industry
Standard...always, it's fucked up how that works really.

So if someone has had experience with the GIMP or some other free software,
and can do the work just as well as a Photoshop user, their resume will be
dumped because the Adobe name has a lot of weight. That someone will then
figure out that to get a job, they'll also have to use proprietary software.

You don't live in a vacuum where you can do what you want.

~~~
cschwarm
True. But what makes you think you are entitled to do what you what?

Getting a job has obviously benefits for you, otherwise you would no try to
get it. But there are also always costs.

These costs include wasting time on learning how to design in the first place
and quite a lot of other activities. And it may also include to get a
Photoshop license.

After all, you are not required to use it for your private stuff, too!

Also, these "market forces and monopolies of various sorts" hold true for
"free" software: If I'd like to get a job as a sys admin, I may have to deal
with Apache and Samba althought I really, really hate it!

Where's my right of not being required to deal with Apache and Samba?

------
omouse
It's hilarious that Miguel thinks RMS is fear-mongering when there is rightly
something to fear. RMS has it right when he says,

 _However good or bad the CodePlex Foundation's actions, we must not accept
them as an excuse for Microsoft's acts of aggression against our community.
From its recent attempt to sell patents to proxy trolls who could then do
dirty work against GNU/Linux to its longstanding promotion of Digital
Restrictions Management, Microsoft continues to act to harm us. We would be
fools indeed to let anything distract us from that._

It isn't fear-mongering when there _is_ something to fear. Miguel also has a
short memory and doesn't remember all the times Microsoft has spread FUD about
GNU/Linux and free software.

~~~
tedunangst
Microsoft is a large company. There are different divisions with different
objectives. When one part of the company tries to extend the olive branch and
you come back with the pitchforks, that's not exactly encouraging the division
that may be on your side that you're worth fighting for.

Who do you think has a better chance of changing Microsoft's policies? RMS or
a group of people working internally?

~~~
joe_the_user
Microsoft may be large but last I looked it wasn't a democracy. The top
management of any large company is paid to bring a single 'strategic vision'
to the company. Microsoft's top management clearly considered attacking open
source to be in their interests when they did it previous. Seems like an
indication they'll do it again.

~~~
tedunangst
The top management of any large company receives input and advise from their
underlings. Those underlings are more likely to propose controversial changes
to corporate strategy if they aren't getting tarred and feathered by the
outsiders they're trying to work with.

------
jacquesm
I don't like cults. I don't like the 'cult of closed software' any more than I
like the 'cult of open software'.

This is not a war, and anybody that is trying to make it look like one is
manipulating people.

There is plenty of room on this planet for both closed and open source
solutions, let the market decide. Long term that should skew the table in the
direction of open source, you really can't compete with free.

But there will _always_ be closed source, just as there will always be open
source.

No need for all this polarizing. Miguel definitely seems to have managed to
get to the 'moral high ground' in this whole argument, he comes across as
reasonable and nice, but that doesn't mean that that should decide the
argument.

Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, nobody is entitled to their own
facts, especially not in something as objectively qualifiable(sp?) as
software.

This whole 'drama queen' episode has gone on long enough, let both deIcaza and
Stallman go back to their respective IDEs (at a guess, Visual Studio and
Emacs) and write some code to prove their point instead of all this prose.

It's Peyton Place for programmers.

~~~
omouse
_I don't like cults. I don't like the 'cult of closed software' any more than
I like the 'cult of open software'._

What you're saying is you don't want to make a concrete decision and you want
options to be open to you.

 _This is not a war, and anybody that is trying to make it look like one is
manipulating people._

It's a war between many businesses, non-profits, users, developers, etc. Do
you want to be stuck with Microsoft Windows everywhere? Or Intel's x86
hardware everywhere? Intel, Microsoft, Apple, etc. will all do what they can
to _kill_ the competition.

That's not manipulation, that's the truth. You can try and ignore it, but
computer history is full of conflict between various companies who tried to
force their ideas and "standards" upon the rest of the industry and on their
competitors.

Maybe you just hate the word "war". Call it competition then, or conflict, or
a struggle, or whatever else you want.

 _No need for all this polarizing._

Yes there is. One idea is opposed to the other. How can there not be
polarization?

 _This whole 'drama queen' episode has gone on long enough, let both deIcaza
and Stallman go back to their respective IDEs (at a guess, Visual Studio and
Emacs) and write some code to prove their point instead of all this prose._

This is actually Stallman's point, and it was also the open source movement's
point. Code is not enough. There is also the discussion of freedom or the
discussion of marketing.

You want to completely ignore the discussion. I don't mind, you can step out
if you like, but what you're saying is exactly what a proprietary software
company would like. They don't want discussion at all because discussion means
legitimizing alternatives.

If you don't want to take part in the discussion, the confrontation and war of
ideas, then _don't take part in it_.

~~~
jacquesm
> What you're saying is you don't want to make a concrete decision and you
> want options to be open to you.

No, what I'm saying is I want to be able to make my own decision regardless of
people trying to make it seem as if the one or the other side is 'evil'.

I've long ago decided the world of closed source is no longer mine. But that
doesn't stop me from having respect for those that try to change the closed
source world from the inside, and it doesn't stop me from having respect for
those that try to keep it alive.

I just don't agree with them.

> It's a war between many businesses, non-profits, users, developers, etc. Do
> you want to be stuck with Microsoft Windows everywhere? Or Intel's x86
> hardware everywhere? Intel, Microsoft, Apple, etc. will all do what they can
> to kill the competition.

Possibly. But that does not mean I'm going to have to stoop to their tactics
in order to make my points. The last time I wrote software for or explicitly
supported closed source platforms is very long ago.

> Yes there is. One idea is opposed to the other. How can there not be
> polarization?

Because there is a lot of gray stuff in between. Closed source software that
ends up being open sourced. People working for closed source companies writing
open source in their spare time using company resources (with approval),
closed source companies donating money, equipment, programmers and other
resources to open source project and so on. Dual license software, etc. To
polarize means that the issues are black and white. They're not.

> This is actually Stallman's point, and it was also the open source
> movement's point. Code is not enough. There is also the discussion of
> freedom or the discussion of marketing.

So, let's do it. Let's not attack people on the other side of the imaginary
divide, if it even exists. The best way to make sure that Microsoft and
company are irrelevant is to make their software irrelevant. To literally
outcode them. Once that's done, there is really no fighting with free.

------
sivers
"Strong opinions are very useful to other people" - Brian Eno

Very opinionated people, even if narrow-minded or wrong, are useful to
conversations.

If you don't have an opinion, you can just say, "Wow. Yeah. I agree with him."

If you do have an opinion, you can reflect against that simplistic strong-
opinion to explain why it's wrong.

Either way, it's good to have some black and white in the paint palette.

~~~
eugenejen
I love citations from Brian Eno. It is nice to see some quotes from masters
from different domains.

~~~
jacquesm
Sure, you get football players that comment on politics, movie stars that tell
you how to run a business (or a state or a country for that matter).

No offense to Brian Eno, he's a pretty smart guy and has a lot of stuff to say
that makes sense, also outside his domain. (and makes interesting music, 'the
pearl' is my favorite music to code by).

But it doesn't generalize.

~~~
KC8ZKF
How are strong opinions outside of Brian Eno's domain?

~~~
jacquesm
They're not, read again.

It's just that it does not generalize from Brian Eno to 'leaders in other
fields'.

There are people that it applies to and there are those that it definitely
doesn't apply to, in other words, being a leader in one domain does not
automatically qualify one for comments on other fields, that varies on a case-
by-case basis.

Brian Eno is exactly the kind of person for who it _does_ seem to work.

------
Anon84

          Two shoe salesmen were sent to Africa in the early 
          1900's to scout the territory.
    
          One telegraphed back: "Situation hopeless. Stop. No one wears shoes."
    
          The other telegraphed: "Business opportunity. Stop. They have no shoes." 
    

Nothing makes a larger difference than knowing an opportunity when you see
one.

~~~
wingo
A poignant example -- but I disagree as to its import.

A perennial business strategy is to create commercial means for satisfying
needs that commerce creates -- of the creation of scarcity out of abundance,
be it food, education, health, etc. So it goes with software as well. On one
side there is "opportunity"; on the other, exploitation.

I don't know how this relates to Miguel & Richard, though; their issue seems
to be the classic "radical vs liberal" split.

------
nestlequ1k
Huge respect for both Miguel and RMS. Everyone knows RMS says stupid
ridiculous things (like his anti-procreation posts on usenet). Seems good
enough to disregard him as a nut on some issues, and a genius on others.

That said, I don't think I'll ever understand the Mono project. As a former C#
coder (back in 2004), the project was doomed to failure from the getgo. No
.NET developer in their right mind would use it as it'll always be lacking in
features compared to Microsoft's implementation.

It's such a sad project because Microsoft gives it no love, yet has no problem
using it as an example of how "open" their platform is. Seems like a complete
waste of talent to me.

~~~
jeswin
I really think u should read
<a>[http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2009/09/mono-not-
chasing...](http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2009/09/mono-not-chasing-tail-
lights.html</a>).

The larger Mono projects on Linux are built on the language and CLR features
implemented in Mono; and don't rely on Microsoft libraries like WinForms. And
as far as language features are concerned, the downloadable Mono compiler even
implements part of the C# 4 spec.

Also, the popular Linux/Mono apps hardly work on Windows.

Actually I need not have replied; "....as it'll always be lacking in features
compared to Microsoft's implementation" -- i just realized this was pure
trolling. Try /.

~~~
grogers
"Also, the popular Linux/Mono apps hardly work on Windows."

How can this possibly be a good thing? It either means mono is a poor .NET
substitute, or the linux mono apps are less cross platform than apps written
in other languages - also a bad thing.

------
ZeroGravitas
I found it ironic that the latter half seemed to be describing Stallman's
tactics as "FUD" without actually using that term. This tactic being famously
employed by Microsoft.

Of course, another layer of irony is that before Microsoft became the _safe_
choice, this was a favourite tactic of IBM, who are now considered an open
source friendly company.

~~~
stcredzero
What if the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is actually justified? I don't think
it's necessarily wrong to doubt or be uncertain that corporations have our
best interests at heart.

~~~
SamAtt
The whole point of the phrase FUD is that it's an emotional response. People
use it to try to overwhelm someone's rational thought process with Fear.

I think you SHOULD use past performance of a corporation as part of a rational
thought process in deciding whether to use software. But FUD is never
justified because emotion has no place in rational decisions.

------
known
I may be cynical, but whoever (e.g. Miguel de Icaza) aligns with Microsoft
should be careful about their
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish> marketing
strategy.

------
yan
The more of Stallman's writing you read, the more you realize how insane that
man is.

~~~
barrkel
[http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-
impossi...](http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-
impossible.mp3)

(FWIW, I respect rms's purity of ideology, and I respect how it broadens the
debate, but I don't think his extreme represents a desired end goal.)

~~~
yan
What's there to respect about purity of ideology? Being pure and ignorant of
other opinions is the easy way out. Learning and understanding alternate
points of view and working with those people is what's worth respect, imho.

~~~
stcredzero
_Being pure and ignorant of other opinions is the easy way out._

There is nothing in ideological purity that demands _ignorance_ of other
opinions. And just because you're _cognizant_ of someone's opinion, doesn't
mean you have to agree. RMS can say what he wants, and I'm sure he's not
ignorant of other's opinions. If you don't like what he says, don't do what he
says. If you don't like his philosophy, maybe you shouldn't use GNU software?
He doesn't force you to use any software. (Which is more than can be said for
lots of corporations.)

~~~
yan
That's exactly opposite of what I think is actually going on. I don't want to
get into a GPL vs BSD argument, but he _does_ say people should not use
commercial software, thus _limiting their options_ to often less useful free
software equivalents. And corporations _do_ give you choice in usage as you
can always opt to not buy software from them. A well-regulated commercial
market is all about choice.

~~~
gloob
_he does say people should not use commercial software_

Commercial != non-free. Stallman doesn't, to my knowledge, have an issue with
the former. He rather dislikes the latter.

------
simplegeek
Who is Migheul de Icaza? I mean, pardon my ignorance, why what he says is
important?

~~~
andreyf
Miguel de Icaza (born c. 1972) is a Mexican free software programmer, best
known for starting the GNOME and Mono projects.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza>

~~~
simplegeek
Thanks. Many apologies, I had no clue ;(

------
huherto
I lost a lot of respect for Miguel when I learned about his political views in
Mexican politics.

------
MarkPNeyer
I think he makes some great points. I worked at Microsoft as an Intern for a
spell, and contrary to popular belief, there really are plenty of smart, hard
working people there.

~~~
michael_h
I don't think very many people are debating that.

I wonder if the major disconnect between RMS and deIcaza is that deIcaza deals
with the _people_ at Microsoft, whereas RMS only sees them as a corporation.
Thus, deIcaza might see them as a diverse and malleable entity and RMS would
not. Of course, I don't have the inside scoop here, so I'm just conjecturing
and could be completely wrong.

~~~
jacquesm
That's a very interesting observation. The same goes for lots of other
organizations, governments and so on.

------
saurabh
I honestly think RMS is a religious nut in a closet. Sure he has his
achievements, but that doesn't give him the right to say what is right and
what is wrong. Times have changed and there are people who know better than
him about the current problems. Mono is itself cool enough that the community
around it will fight against any onslaught. We don't need dictators anymore,
we need explorers.

~~~
drhowarddrfine
Miguel is not an explorer. He and Microsoft are land grabbers.

~~~
saurabh
Just let them whoever they want to be. Causing unnecessary commotion is no way
of leading a community.

