Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Representative?

By Paul Dunne in News
Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 06:54:01 PM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

Mooching about over at That Other Place this evening (yes, I have no life), when I came across a discussion on the MS affair, regulation et al. Run of the mill stuff mainly, with Raymond pushing his usual stuff. But, I stopped dead on reading this:

"Today I am one of the senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work, and a core Linux and open-source developer."

That's Eric S. Raymond claiming this. Could someone give me a reality-check here? "Core Linux developer"? "senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work"? Huh? This seems fabulous to me. Am I missing something? If I'm not, and these claims are as bogus as they seem, wouldn't it be appropriate if the free software world went back to being represented by those who have actually played a major part in it?


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o That Other Place
o discussion on the MS affair, regulation et al
o this
o Also by Paul Dunne


Display: Sort:
Representative? | 95 comments (95 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Wow, I just read that too and was c... (3.00 / 2) (#3)
by Philipp on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 04:07:26 PM EST

Philipp voted 1 on this story.

Wow, I just read that too and was contemplating submitting it.

More to the point: I am getting more and more annoyed by ESR, his philosophy becomes more and more a childish leave-me-alone-and-everything-will-be-great. What he does not seem to able to accept the great benefits of public involvement. The entire internet was nurtured for twenty years by goverment funding and aren't we all glad we have it? Without the oh-so-evil goverment we would probably now have to live in a world of competing MSN and AOL with proprietory access software, restrictive "fair-use" limitations, and horrendous access fees.

I am very sceptical about private companies being able to build basic infrastructure and a lot of software is basic infrastructure. They tend to create monopolies (Cable TV, Windows, Utilities, ...) that are in no principle way better than what public agencies could do (Internet, Streets, ...).

alias kn 'killall -9 netscape-communicator'

Re: Wow, I just read that too and was c... (none / 0) (#73)
by Anonymous Hero on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 09:45:31 AM EST

While ESR's essays are interesting, his ego is starting to overshadow is intelligence. This is not the sort of geek that should be representing Linux open source developers in the press or anywhere.

It's true that Linux needs spokespeople to help it along. ESR was (and he will admit this) one of the first people to commit to doing this. Like most people, I know ESR worked on Fetchmail, but he also was in on a rather infamous Linux IPO. We can only assume he was chosen to be on that special list because he helped with Linux above and beyond Fetchmail.

After ESR (and many others) became quite wealthy from that IPO, he released a rather direct letter to the Linux community. While he probably had good intentions, it seemed more like he was bragging than trying to assure us he wouldn't leave us in the dust.

The latest news about the IIS security "hole" that wasn't was also interesting. A story was posted on /. stating ESR's position on open source and how that model would never have facilitated such a "problem". Well, it turns out there was no problem as such, and all ESR had to do was ask an MCSE or two about it and they would have filled him in on the scoop.

SO, I guess my point here is that even though many people in the Linux community are undoubtedly geniouses, we have to take their opinions as possibly NON-FACT, and move along. While ESR has a rep to maintain, he's not going to hesitate in jumping on Windows like MSNBC jumped on Linux with the Piranha hole issue. Whether you can still respect this kind of "name-calling" is up to you.

rL-2000

[ Parent ]
Bordering on troll I think.... (2.50 / 2) (#14)
by JumpSuit Boy on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 04:20:14 PM EST

JumpSuit Boy voted -1 on this story.

Bordering on troll I think.
The Director disavows any knowledge of the preceding comment.

Re: Bordering on troll I think.... (none / 0) (#38)
by skim123 on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 02:35:44 AM EST

Agreed. I think this is going to result in a long list of ESR bashing. DIE ESR DIE! :)

Just like Slashdot when talking about MS... Ugh.

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
Does he even code anymore ? I thin... (3.00 / 1) (#2)
by asad on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 04:41:03 PM EST

asad voted 1 on this story.

Does he even code anymore ? I think that's what happens when you just talk about what other people do instead of actually doing it.

Heh, well, I think those claims are... (3.00 / 1) (#12)
by jetpack on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 04:45:53 PM EST

jetpack voted 1 on this story.

Heh, well, I think those claims are a bit outrageous. However, he does claim to have written and/or is the maintainer of a number of bits of software Decide for yourself whether or not he is a core linux developer. I'd tend to say not :)
--
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves */

Daaamn. He's outta line.... (2.00 / 1) (#15)
by stardot8 on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 04:57:05 PM EST

stardot8 voted 1 on this story.

Daaamn. He's outta line.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ who died and left you buckwheat?

Aw, just flame him for it on Slashd... (3.70 / 3) (#9)
by marlowe on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 05:15:25 PM EST

marlowe voted -1 on this story.

Aw, just flame him for it on Slashdot and leave it at that. (Rounding down from -0.5)
-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --

Re: Aw, just flame him for it on Slashd... (none / 0) (#71)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 09:27:01 AM EST

In retrospect, I should have followed marlowe's advice (of course).

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Huh, that's interesting. While I t... (3.00 / 1) (#11)
by kovacsp on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 05:19:22 PM EST

kovacsp voted 1 on this story.

Huh, that's interesting. While I think that ESR is a very bright guy, I think he's overemphasizing his role in the development of linux. In fact, to my knowledge ESR has had no significant contributions the the Linux kernel, or even the GNU/Linux system. His entry in the CREDIST is: N: Eric S. Raymond E: esr@thyrsus.com W: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/ D: terminfo master file maintainer D: Editor: Installation HOWTO, Distributions HOWTO, XFree86 HOWTO D: Author: fetchmail, Emacs VC mode, Emacs GUD mode S: 6 Karen Drive S: Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355 S: USA I'd hardly call that core. However, I think he's just saying this as hyperbole to make a point. Perhaps he should just stick to philosophy and evangelism. :)

ESR has gone off the deep end recen... (3.00 / 2) (#7)
by alisdair on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 05:21:58 PM EST

alisdair voted 1 on this story.

ESR has gone off the deep end recently -- maybe being rich has gone to his head or something. Continously ranting about how fantastic Open Source is is counterproductive: while it might get the corporate vote, it's going to alienate those of us who realise [believe?] that OSS is not an instant fix (you only have to look at mozilla to see that).

And now he's claiming he's some sort of Unix/Internet deity? When was the last time he actually coded something innovative and useful? I'm losing more and more respect for him every time he opens his mouth.

Re: ESR has gone off the deep end recen... (2.00 / 1) (#28)
by Anonymous Hero on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 10:07:46 PM EST

ESR has gone off the deep end recently -- maybe being rich has gone to his head or something.

You should note that he's really not rich anymore. VA Linux, where a majority of ESR's paper millions resided, is down considerably from its initial lofty heights (by, roughly, a factor of 10). ESR has still to amend his "Get off My Lawn, You People" essay to "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?", but he's no longer stinking rich.

No, I'm not really sure what's going on in that head of his. This seems to be a phase in development that a lot of SpokesGeeks reach -- maybe their brains just can't handle the positive publicity. Personally, I'd urge ESR to go on a nice long trip someplace and we'll see if the whole net comes falling down.

I kinda doubt it will.

For my part, I'm going to stop telling the Uninitiated to check out Raymond's stuff. The Cathedral and the Bazaar is the only really visionary thing he's ever written, and who needs this egotistical garbage? If I ever want to hear a boring loser rant on about how he's a member of the master race because he can configure Sendmail, I'll probably just shoot myself for wanting such a thing.

[ Parent ]

aside to author: Your Britishness i... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by eann on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 05:24:20 PM EST

eann voted 1 on this story.

aside to author: Your Britishness is showing. On this side of the pond, "fabulous" doesn't mean "from a fictional story" like it's supposed to; in colloquial usage it usually means "wonderful, marvelous, extremely good". Not only that, no one over here would call 3:42 EDT evening--you must be in a time zone that's significantly farther east. :)

Anyway, I'm not going to speak to ESR's claim that he's a "core Linux developer", since I don't really know what he has contributed and am far too lazy to investigate on my own, but I think "senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work" is sufficiently vague enough to be true(-ish). He has had his fingers in quite a few projects (including documentation and RFCs) that are very widespread these days, and he's a better publicity guy for Open Source software than RMS is for Free software (remember--they're different but related concepts), if only because he comes across as slightly less radical. Not unrelated to that opinion, I should point out that I've never been cornered by ESR at a party.

I don't have time to read the entire discussion you linked to this afternoon :), but I definitely plan to go back to it. Larry Lessig usually has interesting things to say about the way intellectual property works. And the little blurb from him they pulled to the margin starts by challenging ESR on some of his claims. :)

I'd like to see a write-up of that Controversy Roundtable here to discuss.

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. —MLK

$email =~ s/0/o/; # The K5 cabal is out to get you.


Re: aside to author: Your Britishness i... (3.00 / 4) (#17)
by Paul Dunne on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 07:03:32 PM EST

Aside to eann: do you realise how insulting it is to call an Irishman a Brit?
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
[ Parent ]
Re: aside to author: Your Britishness i... (none / 0) (#68)
by shepd on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 09:03:35 AM EST

>Aside to eann: do you realise how insulting it is to call an Irishman a
Brit?

Double aside to anyone:  :-)  Do you know that every (ok not every, but often)
time I tell someone in England that I'm from Canada, by the end of the
conversation they say something like "So how is the weather like in America?". 
While the ice between Canada/America is nothing like it is between the
Irish/British, it is annoying.	But you know what:  I don't care because to
tell you the truth the differences are too small for an "outsider" to notice. 
And I can see why:  The more I look for the differences, the more *I* realize
there aren't any.  Were all people.  We all want the same things (in general). 
The only thing is, some of us want to argue more than others.  Yeah, this goes
for BOTH sides, in any conflict.

Kinda makes you wonder why British/Irish and Americans/Canadians argue.  The
wars were years ago.  Please, everyone forgive/forget about them.  Just
remember enough not have them again.  Everything else deserves to stay firmly
planted in history books, IMHO.  For once we should take some advice from the
big purple monster (Barney).  :-)

Sorry for the rant...


[ Parent ]
Re: aside to author: Your Britishness i... (none / 0) (#74)
by eann on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 10:04:35 AM EST

Oh dear. Sorry 'bout that. I was going for humour, so I'll say "Um, er, you know, I meant the broader sense, like 'British Isles'. Yeah, that's it."

And I'll try not to call you Scottish, either, if you'll remember that "Yankee" is a compliment in some parts of the US and a deep insult in others. :)

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. —MLK

$email =~ s/0/o/; # The K5 cabal is out to get you.


[ Parent ]
Re: aside to author (3.50 / 2) (#25)
by Paul Dunne on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 07:54:02 PM EST

Now, that said, to actually address one of your points:

> a better publicity guy for Open Source software than RMS is for Free
> software (remember--they're different but related concepts),
> because he comes across as slightly less radical.

Do you really find a right-wing gun-nut more convincing than RMS? I have always found the opposite to be true. Yeah, sure, "Hairy Jaysus" is a PR man's nightmare. But read the stuff on the website. He has put together a cogent philosophy designed to underpin free software. I started off with Linux seeing only the "free beer" aspect; it was RMS's essays that made me see there was a lot more to it than that. This was before Raymond's incarnation as a Linux/"Open Source" propagandist, but even so, he's watered down the message so much, and diluted it with so many of his own silly ideas, that I think I would have found him far from convincing.
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
[ Parent ]

Right wing gun nut ... (4.00 / 2) (#27)
by nictamer on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 09:47:34 PM EST

... that sums it up, basically. His stance is so absurd ... I wonder if he realizes, when he travels abroad (like, in Europe!), he realises how much his hobby is regarded with, at best, suspicious looks? The guy is way too US-centric, in a very bad way, to bear any kind of representativity. On top of that, he has that *very* annoying tendency of mixing everything up -- no I'm sorry, Eric, there are free countries out there where your average freak can't buy automatic weapons round the corner ... and where, on top of that, citizens don't give a damn shit about being able to buy one.

(As an aside, I love to point out that the only political party in France which advocates such gun availability is the Front National, the racist, Petain-praising far right party)


--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]
Re: Right wing gun nut ... (none / 0) (#51)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 07:05:55 AM EST

Jeeeeeez.

Bzzzzt.

I question your definition of "free country".

The United States of America pioneered the concept of a "free citizen" unbeholden to the state. These rights were won with the blood of patriots, through their commitment to publicly announce their rights (Declaration of Independence), and stand behind their words and defend those rights (Constitution) to the death.

Might has always made right - the only rights you have are those that you fight to defend. Today, much of that fighting can take place in a civilized fashion (in the courts), but at a fundamental level, all rights depend on the threat of force. There are no "natural rights".

When anyone talks about "the government can do this...", "the government can do that...", the only thing that gives the government an ability to enforce an edict is its ability to apply force -- technically, this ability is "granted" to the organs of government in the US at the suffrage of the citizenry -- unfortunately, this is no longer true.

An armed citizenry is a free citizenry.

An unarmed citizenry can only be free until the unscrupulous (politicians) discover that they can feed on those innocent citizens without threat of reprisal -- any study of history demonstrates the truth of this -- I would be more than willing to engage in any depth of discussion on this matter, with citations of reference, etc etc.



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: Right wing gun nut ... (none / 0) (#55)
by Paul Dunne on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 07:23:13 AM EST

You say

> There are no "natural rights".

Hmmm. This "Declaration of Independence" of which you speak, would that be the one that runs

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."?

If you'd like to explain the difference between the concept of "natural right", and the concept expressed in those famous words, you go right ahead. But please, could you form a right-wing gun-nuts mailing-list to do so?
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
[ Parent ]

Re: Right wing gun nut ... (none / 0) (#65)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 08:28:37 AM EST

Hmmm. This "Declaration of Independence" of which you speak, would that be the one that runs "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."?

That would be the very same document!

If you'd like to explain the difference between the concept of "natural right", and the concept expressed in those famous words, you go right ahead. But please, could you form a right-wing gun-nuts mailing-list to do so?

Well, since I don't think that there _is_ a difference between the concept of "natural right" and the concept expressed in those famous words, I have neither the desire nor the inclination to either explain the difference OR to establish a right-wing gun-nuts mailing list.

If, in between your ridicule and illogic, you had taken the time to actually read what I said, you would have noticed that I said that there are no such things as natural rights -- only rights which are articulated and defended.

The same holds true for the American Revolutionaries and their Declaration of Independence -- while they can say that they hold certain rights to be self-evident all they want, they were not able to enjoy those rights until they fought to defend them.

Once again, rather than replying in good faith as I have done, I could have refuted your argument using the same spirit and manner which you used and suggest that you create a left-wing commie-nut mailing list to describe your paranoid marxist utopia.



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: Right wing gun nut ... (none / 0) (#64)
by nictamer on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 08:24:48 AM EST

When anyone talks about "the government can do this...", "the government can do that...", the only thing that gives the government an ability to enforce an edict is its ability to apply force -- technically, this ability is "granted" to the organs of government in the US at the suffrage of the citizenry -- unfortunately, this is no longer true.

An armed citizenry is a free citizenry.

Talk about a US-centric perspective ... whatever.

It's your fucking problem if your political system is so rotten from the inside by your unashamed and unbalanced lust and respect for money.

I'm not going to dissert on how you're wrong WRT where the "government" gets its legitimacy. Instead, I'm going to ask you: are you going to assault federal buildings with your guns if things turn out not like you think they should? Yeah, right.

You need some reality check. There is no moral or philosophically sensible justification for your love of guns; it's just your hobby, and you're doing your best at rationalizing. Quite a dangerous cognitive dissonance if you ask me.


--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]
Re: Right wing gun nut ... (none / 0) (#66)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 08:39:28 AM EST

Talk about a US-centric perspective ... whatever.

Please demonstrate an historical example where a currently "free people" did not win that freedom by articulating their rights and vigorously defending them.

A good set of non-US examples would be the English Civil War, whereby the excesses of the monarchy were permanently curbed by Parliament, or the Irish Civil War where the rights of Irishmen have been consistently downtrodden since the English Civil War, and the Irish have yet to successfully defend their freedom.

Instead, I'm going to ask you: are you going to assault federal buildings with your guns if things turn out not like you think they should? Yeah, right.

Do you honestly think that is a sane question?

Perhaps the question you meant to ask was: "If the citizenry of the United States of America is truly dissatisfied with their government, will they be able to obtain satisfaction by articulating their desire and acting to defend that desire?"

I would say that the answer to the latter question would be yes, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and regard the former question as rhetorical.

Of course, since the American people seem largely satisfied with their current situation, then they have little reason to articulate new rights or defend them.



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#67)
by nictamer on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 08:56:57 AM EST

The English civil war .. damn, was'nt that 3 century ago? I tend to remember, also, that in said war, part of the army stood with the parliament and part with the king ... Anyway, it's great to get history lessons from a country so backward WRT civil rights. The USofA, the only country where it's legal to buy machine guns, the only western country with the death penalty, one of the rare countries in the world, still, where minors can be sentenced to death, the only country with Somalia which refused to sign the UN's children's right treaty, one of the western countries with the most illitteracy, one of the rare countries who refused to ban landmines, ...

Hell, I guess with that track record, I'd want to get a machine gun myself.

But in the end, you just need to realize this: most Europeans don't give a fuck about getting guns. We don't seem to need them. That's a typically American thing. And don't tell me that I'm less free here. You're ridiculous enough as you are.


--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]
Re: US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#69)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 09:13:22 AM EST

Anyway, it's great to get history lessons from a country so backward WRT civil rights.

You weren't getting history lessons from a country, but from a person.... and, last time I checked, I wasn't the absolute sovreign of this country, so I'm not sure that I can claim full responsibility for all actions taken by the USA over its lifetime.

Hell, I guess with that track record, I'd want to get a machine gun myself.

Exactly.

But in the end, you just need to realize this: most Europeans don't give a fuck about getting guns. We don't seem to need them.

As an example, there was a Jewish ghetto in Berlin during World War II which was able to hold off the Nazi SS for years, with just a couple of revolvers and bolt action rifles. The Nazi scaremongers didn't know how many weapons were in there, and they were too afraid to try to take the place by storm.

As another example, the French Resistance, after their Vichy government sided with the Nazis, was able to cause significant fifth column damage to the Nazi war effort, because they were armed with personal weapons.

The point isn't that you need a to have a machinegun in peacetime to get your mail or to go down to the village pub, but that when an aggressor chooses to enact his own fantasies upon you, you are not a defenseless victim, but capable of self-defense.

In the foreseeable future, unless some form of miracle occurs (we can all hope), there will always be sociopaths. And sociopaths, by nature, don't respect the rule of law or the milk of human kindness -- sociopaths are aggressors, and victimize the defenseless. A safe society is an armed society.

And, as far as most Europeans don't give a fuck about getting guns. We don't seem to need them, Ask Switzerland.



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#75)
by nictamer on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 10:05:26 AM EST

In the foreseeable future, unless some form of miracle occurs (we can all hope), there will always be sociopaths. And sociopaths, by nature, don't respect the rule of law or the milk of human kindness -- sociopaths are aggressors, and victimize the defenseless. A safe society is an armed society.

I'm worried of sociopaths. I'm worried of people who go ballistic when you accidentally scratch their cars. And in that case, I'm worried that such a person had an easy access to guns -- because if such a person uses that gun, it will be as a knee jerk reaction, and no amount of dissuasion will be useful: it will be to late in any case.

See, as a motorbike driver in a crowded city, I've had to deal with that kind of people (insane taxi drivers mostly). Absolutely no temper. No self-control. Once such a freak chased me for half a mile because he thought I had bumped into his car -- I did'nt even touch it! But he was willing to risk everybody's safety just because of that. No, I'm sorry, I'm much more worried about THAT kind of security issue than with having to defend against burglars. I have'nt been burglared in the past 5 years, I have, on the other end, met maybe a few dozen of such freaks. YMMV


--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]
Re: US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#76)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 10:18:47 AM EST

I'm worried of sociopaths. I'm worried of people who go ballistic when you accidentally scratch their cars. And in that case, I'm worried that such a person had an easy access to guns -- because if such a person uses that gun, it will be as a knee jerk reaction, and no amount of dissuasion will be useful: it will be to late in any case.

Sociopaths will be violent with whatever tools are at their disposal (whether that be a gun, their car, or their fists).

Pre-meditated sociopathy (ie, criminal behavior) usually means that the sociopath will have planned ahead to be prepared to commit violence -- that means that, whether its legal or not, he will have a weapon of sorts at his disposal.

If you, as a law-abiding, peace-desiring citizen are accosted by a lunatic waving a gun, trying to run you over with his car, or offering to readjust your face with his fist, if you had the ability to defend yourself (with mace, a bulldozer or a baseball bat) without recrimination, you would be better off. The reason that guns are used as the prototypical example of a defensive weapon is that they require a low-level of training and are highly effective, even for frail people.

See, as a motorbike driver in a crowded city, I've had to deal with that kind of people (insane taxi drivers mostly). Absolutely no temper. No self-control.

If those same taxi drivers were aware that every motorcyclist had a high likelihood of carrying a firearm, would they be as enthusiastic about attacking them with their cars?



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#77)
by nictamer on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 10:59:08 AM EST

Sociopaths will be violent with whatever tools are at their disposal (whether that be a gun, their car, or their fists).

FINE!!! Super fine!!! Let them be violent with their fist! *AT LEAST* I can RUN and if I can't it would take them some time before they kill ME, some time during which people could stop them, or call the police, or the guy could just realize how stupid he is being ... so that pretty much proves my point.

If those same taxi drivers were aware that every motorcyclist had a high likelihood of carrying a firearm, would they be as enthusiastic about attacking them with their cars?

Whatever. Ever driven a motorbike? Usually you wear gloves, leather jacket, and you woudl have to carry your gun in a holster. So in the situation I describe, you have to take off your gloves, open your leather jacket, get your gun, you're dead, and then you can shoot. Completely useless, unless you were already prepared to kill someone. Great idea. Absofuckinglutely great.


--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]
Re: US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#78)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 11:16:48 AM EST

Let them be violent with their fist! *AT LEAST* I can RUN

Maybe you can run (assuming you could run faster than your aggressor), but what about the little old lady who can't? She might not be able to run, but she could pull a derringer from her purse.

and if I can't it would take them some time before they kill ME

If everyone is limited to their fists (including sociopaths), then the sociopath who trains every day in a karate dojo, savoring the moment when he can break a person with his hands, will be able to kill you quickly in your equally unarmed state. The advantage of the firearm is that it can defend someone who doesn't spend their whole life in violent pursuits -- if all tools of defense are stripped away, then all that remains is physical force -- which means that people with natural athletic talent will once again rule (might makes right). In that sense, distributed ability to counter force with force (guns) is the only thing that prevents karate masters from running the world.



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#79)
by nictamer on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 11:45:56 AM EST

Maybe you can run (assuming you could run faster than your aggressor), but what about the little old lady who can't? She might not be able to run, but she could pull a derringer from her purse.

Conversely ... without even being close to strong myself, only a small portion of the population would be able to kill me with their bare hands ... wheras with a gun this small percentage goes up to 95% (excluding paralyzed and blind people).

If everyone is limited to their fists (including sociopaths), then the sociopath who trains every day in a karate dojo, savoring the moment when he can break a person with his hands, will be able to kill you quickly in your equally unarmed state.

So here's the internal dialog in your fictitious psycho's head: Damn, I really feel like killing someone today ... Hey, I've got an idea! I'm going to take Kravmaga lessons for 5 years so that I can break anyone's neck in no time. Yeah, right.


--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]
Re: US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#91)
by CodeWright on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 07:48:14 AM EST

A link with relevance to the discussion

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#80)
by StatGrape on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 12:45:00 PM EST

"If everyone is limited to their fists (including sociopaths), then the sociopath who trains every day in a karate dojo, savoring the moment when he can break a person with his hands, will be able to kill you quickly in your equally unarmed state."

The idea of having to ensure that I'm in good shape to defend myself makes me feel a hell of a lot better than having to worry about being quick on the draw. Guns remove our ability to opt out of confrontation, which is not good.

Since guns are virtually a non-issue in my home country (Canada), I can just cross the street to avoid someone who looks like they want to do me harm without having to worry about being shot in the back. If he's got a knife, he has to get close enough to use it - I can opt out by not allowing that to happen.

-SG

NerdPerfect
[ Parent ]

Re: US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#81)
by Anonymous Hero on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 01:06:53 PM EST

What would you rather have?
A society where everybody could defend themselves or
A sociery where no one would need to defend themselves.

Tough choice there

-henrik

[ Parent ]

Re: US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#89)
by prestonlanders on Thu Apr 27, 2000 at 10:08:41 PM EST

and how do you propose to achieve this utopia?

[ Parent ]
Re: US-centric, Us-centric, US-centric .... (none / 0) (#92)
by CodeWright on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 08:04:35 AM EST

use of an example "utopia" as a cure-all is a sure-fire indicator that the process in question has not undergone sufficient analysis

in reality, as opposed to the world of mathematical perfection, people have to deal "good enough" -- too often, people fall prey to translating their desire for the "perfect world" into trying to make the world perfect -- note that those two are not equivalent

although, mathematically, you can have perfection, reality is "engineering" -- and engineering is all about fault tolerance, estimated performance, and over-engineering "just to be sure"

people attempting to improve the human condition should approach the problem with an engineer's perspective rather than a mathematicians.

just my $0.02



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Motorcyclists & Guns (none / 0) (#88)
by Dacta on Thu Apr 27, 2000 at 02:42:42 AM EST

In the city, a gun would be pretty useless to a Motorcyclist (I ride). There is no way you can concentrate on avoiding the stupid drivers around, holes in the road, and getting off gloves and opening your jacket to get a gun out.

You'd be rolling on the road and the taxi would be gone before you could do anything, and the taxi drivers would know it.

In anycase, threating someone with a gun because they were careless, rude or stupid is not a good solution.

[ Parent ]

Australia (none / 0) (#87)
by Dacta on Thu Apr 27, 2000 at 01:39:35 AM EST

"A Nation born not of war but by free and democratic election by the people" (something like that, anyway)

I believe Switzerland has been a democracy for quite a while, too, and had no revolution to achieve it.

Hey, look. I used to shoot recreationally - with a SKS SemiAutomatic, too, so I do know something about what I'm talking about.

I don't believe (no matter what the US Constitution says) that the "right to bear arms" in neccessary to make a free society.

I realise that there is nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise, so I'm not going to try. I used to agree with you, but now I find I can't defend that moral position anymore.

Shooting is a fun sport, and guns can be beautiful things. Just don't mix up the enjoyment of the sport with any political views.

[ Parent ]

Better a gun nut than a fool (3.70 / 3) (#37)
by Ozymandias on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 02:05:59 AM EST

Do you really find a right-wing gun-nut more convincing than RMS?

To be blunt; Yes. That "right-wing gun-nut" has at least read and learned from history. RMS is nothing more than a neo-Marxist, and one thing hasn't changed since the classic brand - it works well for bees and ants, but for thinking, reasoning, selfish humans, it's crap.

Don't believe me? Follow this little thought experiment:

You have a choice between a hypothetical Linux-based, closed-source product, and a free, open-source product that does the same thing. You choose the open-source product.

Now the closed-source product is also free, does the same things, and is known to be as stable as the open-source version. You would probably choose the open-source as a matter of "principle."

The closed-source product is now free, has three times the features of the open-source product, and includes a $100 bill. Which do you choose?

You might be sitting there saying "the open-source one," but you're lying. When it came right down to it, you'd be thinking about that advertisement for the 10.2 GB hard drive for $99. Very few people would choose the open-source product, and even THEY would get the closed-source one, just for the free $100. What changed? It became better for you to get the closed-source product.

The same thing is what drives open source. Some people use it simply because it's free. Others, because they like the OS or the feature sets better. And still more because they like the benefits of open source. You don't use it because you have some philisophical belief in open source. You use it because it benefits you to do so. Take away the benefits, and GNU dies tomorrow.

Now comes the big question - why does it matter? Why does that mean RMS is wrong? Why is his brand of neo-Marxism bad? Because in trying to GIVE choice to the users, he's taking it away from the programmers. He doesn't want ANYTHING to be closed source, he wants everything to be free. The Soviet Union wanted everyone to be paid the same, too, and that worked real well. In the US, we have kids from all over the world filing for refugee status with foster families because Mom the doctor and Dad the scientist make less money than the taxi driver down the hall, but the government won't let them charge what their services are worth. That is what RMS would have you do.

That right-wing gun-nut might seem strange to you, who have been deluded by RMS's second-hand pipe dreams. But I'd follow the advice of the gun-nut before pipe-dream, because I can see, I can think, and I can understand what's happened in the past. RMS believes that we can all be free and happy if we'd just put him in charge, just let him determine what we can use and what we call it. ESR knows his history, and he knows that the only true freedom is found where the governed have power over the governers, and that the last, true power is found in the barrel of a gun.
- Ozymandias
[ Parent ]

Better code than binary (none / 0) (#42)
by Inoshiro on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 04:27:04 AM EST

I'm glad that I have the liberty to do as is with software I have on my machine, and am happy to give the same liberty to others who also write code.

If you want to give code out in a way that people can close-source it, use the BSD licence. The LGPL allows linking with things, and so an LGPL and BSD system can work very well (I think it's called Linux ;-)). I would choose the open source one over the closed source one, even if money is involved because I have principles, and because I like my liberties.

If Open Source/Free Software/Programmer Power (as I call it) wasn't, as you call it, to my advantage, then I wouldn't use it. But at no point is the access, ability to play with, and ability to redistribute (and even fork, if I so choose) the code less advantageous than some 10gb HD, which will begin decreasing in value at about 5% per week until they no longer sell them, and 40gb HDs are 100$ Principles of liberty and freedom are worth far more than material gain, otherwise "there'd be no advantage, and they'd disapear" :-)



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
The detritus of history (1.00 / 1) (#45)
by Paul Dunne on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 05:10:03 AM EST

"`My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my words, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Hmmm. Don't you think you should pick a less revealing handle?
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
[ Parent ]

Re: The detritus of history (none / 0) (#94)
by Ozymandias on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 01:25:41 PM EST

Care to explain what's so revealing about it? On average, less than 1 in 10 people can name the poem or the poet (Percy Bysshe Shelley, for those who were wondering) although most find the name oddly familiar. And I agree with the sentiment. Not of the King, but of the poet. We neglect history, we neglect fine arts; and our children are the worse for it.

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed.

And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1818
- Ozymandias
[ Parent ]

The detritus of history (none / 0) (#46)
by Paul Dunne on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 05:10:46 AM EST

507 words, and nary a word of sense. You sir, are the type of nut who gives right-wing gun-nuts a bad name. Now would you ever go back to your ramshackle Montana hideout and give the rest of us a chance to get on with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
[ Parent ]
Re: The detritus of history (none / 0) (#50)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 06:54:56 AM EST

Ad hominem attack

It shouldn't need explanation, but anyone who needs to resort to an ad hominem character assassination doesn't have a strong enough argument to stand for itself.



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: The detritus of history (1.00 / 1) (#52)
by Paul Dunne on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 07:10:32 AM EST

There was no character assassination in what I wrote; just ridicule. An ad hominem attack is perfectly reasonable when the antagonist doesn't make any coherent point in the first place. The poor fellow defends ESR, for all his faults an advocate of free software, by explaining to us poor deluded fools that free software is a commie plot, and that furthermore freedom == gun. Pointing out that, judged on the basis of what he's written, he is a fool, is a perfectly legitimate argument. Or do you think "RMS is nothing more than a neo-Marxist" followed by 500-odd words of claptrap about "freedom" and guns needs refuting in detail? Yes, let's take seriously every kook who posts a comment, however nutty. That'll really make kuro5hin a place worth visiting -- not.
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
[ Parent ]
Re: The detritus of history (none / 0) (#60)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 07:41:53 AM EST

Pointing out that, judged on the basis of what he's written, he is a fool, is a perfectly legitimate argument.

Using that logic, you sir, are a fool.



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: The detritus of history (none / 0) (#62)
by Paul Dunne on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 08:00:46 AM EST

Indeed, resorting to that line of argument is dangerous, because it can be used against one. However, since what I've written has been clearly-expressed and well-argued, I have no fears that the mud will stick. I'll leave it to the reader ito judge whether the fuckwit capable in one sentence of referring for inspiration to the American Declaration of Independence, and in the next declaring that "there are no natural rights", is a good judge of foolishness.
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
[ Parent ]
Re: The detritus of history (none / 0) (#63)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 08:18:56 AM EST

However, since what I've written has been clearly-expressed and well-argued, I have no fears that the mud will stick. I'll leave it to the reader ito judge whether the fuckwit...

I suppose that, in your world, calling people names repeatedly passes for "clear expression" and "well argued".

capable in one sentence of referring for inspiration to the American Declaration of Independence,

I wasn't referring to it for "inspiration" -- merely as a reference example of documentation created by people who had fought to defend a set of rights which they had articulated

...and in the next declaring that "there are no natural rights", is a good judge of foolishness.

I still contend that there are no natural rights -- even in the example raised, the American fight for independence, while they CLAIMED that those rights were inalienable, they did not possess those rights until they fought to preserve them.

Paul, perhaps an example with which you can better relate than the American fight for independence would be in order? Like the Irish Republican fight for independence? The same logic applies...

Although it is clear that my posts in this topic will only be met by Paul Dunn with ad hominem attacks, ridicule, and illogic, I continue to do so in the hope that others reading will be able to judge for themselves.



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: Better a gun nut than a fool (4.00 / 1) (#49)
by sec on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 05:36:25 AM EST

Three times as many features? With a $100 bill?

Cool, but what's the catch? No company can afford to offer this kind of deal indefinitely and indiscriminately, so they're obviously doing this for some reason. If I didn't know what it was, then I'd be leery about accepting such an offer. Not to mention that features aren't everything.

Good to see that you learn from history. However, you seem to have been sleeping during the part where India gained its independence from Britain. And, since America had more and bigger guns than Vietnam, why did the Vietnam War end the way it did? Ditto with Russia and Afghanistan.

Learning from history means learning from all of history, not just those parts which you happen to like. You claim to be able to see, and think for yourself, so why don't you take a look at history for yourself? If you did, you'd find that physical violence is merely one current that has shaped history into what it is. Sometimes it has been more important, other times it has been less important. It has never been totally absent from history, and it has never been the sole factor at play.

Last, but not least, does your gun give you any real power over your government? Do you really think you could take on your government's military with it? If you do, then who's the fool now?

Face it, gun ownership simply won't give any real power over your country's government; it will merely give you the illusion of having power. If you disagree with me, then I dare you to attempt to excercise said power. We'll see how long you last. :P

[ Parent ]

Re: Better a gun nut than a fool (none / 0) (#58)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 07:37:47 AM EST

Good to see that you learn from history. However, you seem to have been sleeping during the part where India gained its independence from Britain. And, since America had more and bigger guns than Vietnam, why did the Vietnam War end the way it did? Ditto with Russia and Afghanistan.

The US did not win the Vietnam war because the politicians (McNamara) wouldn't let them. It certainly had nothing to do with a lack of "more and bigger guns". The US could have easily to nuked North Vietnam into a glowing parking lot. Or carpet bombed it with B-52s. Or just set up a line of bulldozers and left a growing clearcut desert behind the advancing front line, to be reforested after victory.

Russia lost Afghanistan for the same reason that they didn't win immediately in Chechenya (and that the US didn't win in Vietnam) -- namely, the piecemeal commitment of forces without sufficient combat support. They kept sending in spetznatz teams of a hundred or so men who would penetrate deeply, get encircled and cut off, then be sniped to death. Rinse and repeat.

Last, but not least, does your gun give you any real power over your government? Do you really think you could take on your government's military with it? If you do, then who's the fool now?

Without guns, there would be no United States of America. If the citizens of the US decided to fight their own military even today, they would win.



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: Better a gun nut than a fool (none / 0) (#70)
by sec on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 09:15:57 AM EST

The US did not win the Vietnam war because the politicians (McNamara) wouldn't let them. It certainly had nothing to do with a lack of "more and bigger guns". The US could have easily to nuked North Vietnam into a glowing parking lot. Or carpet bombed it with B-52s. Or just set up a line of bulldozers and left a growing clearcut desert behind the advancing front line, to be reforested after victory.

Russia lost Afghanistan for the same reason that they didn't win immediately in Chechenya (and that the US didn't win in Vietnam) -- namely, the piecemeal commitment of forces without sufficient combat support. They kept sending in spetznatz teams of a hundred or so men who would penetrate deeply, get encircled and cut off, then be sniped to death. Rinse and repeat.

So, in other words, factors other than sheer military might caused these conflicts to end the way they did. Funny, that was the point I was trying to make.

Without guns, there would be no United States of America.

So, if guns hadn't been invented yet at the time of the American Revolution, would you Americans instead have an unhealty obsession with owning, say, bows and arrows?

If the citizens of the US decided to fight their own military even today, they would win.

I think that is a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Certainly, there is historical precedent -- the abovementioned case of India, for example. Do note, though, that the Indian people didn't need guns to pull this off.

[ Parent ]

Re: Better a gun nut than a fool (none / 0) (#72)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 09:38:59 AM EST

So, in other words, factors other than sheer military might caused these conflicts to end the way they did. Funny, that was the point I was trying to make.

Factors other than guns caused the conflicts to end the way they did. However, it was still a conflict of military might (in the sense that propaganda machines and the "will-to-fight" are part of military might).

So, if guns hadn't been invented yet at the time of the American Revolution, would you Americans instead have an unhealty obsession with owning, say, bows and arrows?

Absolutely. You raise a very valid point -- in fact, I have been mis-speaking myself by using the word "guns" when I should have been using the word "arms". When I was saying "guns", I meant "state-of-the-art weapons affordable by the average citizen". Arms, in that context, includes special weapons of all sorts (ie, information weapons like propaganda or mass peaceful demonstrations, or bio-weapons, etc).

I think that is a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Certainly, there is historical precedent -- the abovementioned case of India, for example. Do note, though, that the Indian people didn't need guns to pull this off.

Using the modified definition, "arms", I believe that the India example supports what I was saying.

Perhaps my argument makes more sense in the context of numbering grassroots organization (freedom of speech / peacable gathering) and information exchange as "arms in the defense of a free people"?



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: Better a gun nut than a fool (none / 0) (#86)
by sec on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 06:35:56 PM EST

Using the modified definition, "arms", I believe that the India example supports what I was saying.

Perhaps my argument makes more sense in the context of numbering grassroots organization (freedom of speech / peacable gathering) and information exchange as "arms in the defense of a free people"?

Well, I think you're starting to see the bigger picture here. The people of India may not have had guns, but they had power. There are certainly examples of groups that had plenty of guns, but not nearly so much power.

When it comes down to it, if you want to change the way a government, etc. is behaving, you need power. Guns may be one way of getting that power, but they aren't the only way, and they aren't necessarily the best way, either. I think you'd find that if the citizens of the United States wished to topple their own government, it would be necessary to employ a number of different ways of getting power -- I really doubt that the gun route alone would be sufficient.

[ Parent ]

Re: Better a gun nut than a fool (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by WattsMartin on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 04:25:44 PM EST

...and that the last, true power is found in the barrel of a gun.

Are you aware that this is a nearly direct quote from Chairman Mao? This line was also echoed by Castro during the Cuban Revolution, if I recall correctly. Finding the minor flaws in using them as libertarian role models is left as an exercise to the reader.

I don't particularly like terms like "right-wing gun nut," and I suspect if I had a choice between being locked in a room with RMS or with ESR I'd pick Raymond. (I suspect that if I had a choice between RMS, ESR and ten rabid ferrets, the choice might be harder, but I digress.) But you're just following in the footsteps of the person who used that phrase by using this argument.

Like it or not, "freedom" is a nebulous term. I wouldn't want to have "freedom from fear" if that meant intrusive security (the typical dystopia presented by libertarians as an argument against Big Government); but I wouldn't want to have "freedom from interference" if that meant the corporate-dominated dystopias imagined by cyberpunk authors. Even what we consider to be "fundamental rights of freedom" are subjective impositions. An "economic bill of rights" that guaranteed a right to shelter, food and basic health care would be anathema to many Americans--but rights to freedom of speech, press and assembly are ultimately just as arbitrary. "God-given freedoms," in the final analysis, are decided upon by society.

I'd rather not follow RMS' vision of the future simply because I think programming should have the same protections we afford other acts of creation--just as I should be able to make a living as a writer if people are willing to pay for my work, I should be able to make a living as a programmer if people are willing to pay for my work. Even so, I think people misunderstand the source of Stallman's philosophy; it comes not from the Marxist community, but from the scientific community, where sharing of information is considered essential. And indeed, even as an intellectual property advocate, the implications of patenting genes, lifeforms and medical techniques--and of "trade secrets" preventing the free flow of information between researchers--are troubling.

[ Parent ]

Re: Better a gun nut than a fool (none / 0) (#93)
by Ozymandias on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 01:18:55 PM EST

Actually, I am aware that many people have used this argument, including Chairman Mao and Fidel Castro, as well as Joseph Stalin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and Napolean Bonaparte. They were all correct, too; good politics or not they were all right.

For example, Castro knew this argument to be true; using it, he conquered Cuba. Still knowing it to be true, he used it to oppress the people of Cuba. It's two sides of the same point; the people of Cuba have no power over their leadership because they have no ability to revolt.

The Constitution includes the Second Amendment for a number of reasons. As spelled out in the document itself, it seems to simply give the right to have a militia, which people interpret to mean a cross between the National Guard and the State Police.

In truth, there's more to it than that. The writings of the various founding fathers, including the transcripts of their debates over this issue, make it clear that they intended the people of the United States to be able to fight any oppression. The Whiskey Rebellion was the first example; a small group of farmers objected to the policies of the central government (regarding the production and taxation of alcohol) and rebelled. They didn't simply pick up guns and start shooting; they went through all forms of recourse available to them, and finally resorted to armed rebellion. They were defeated and hanged.

But the court recognized their right to do as they had done. It's not a matter of "you have the right at any time to shoot anyone, anywhere and call it Free Speach." It's a matter of having the right, as a last resort, of armed force against oppression. The idea, as expressed by Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and others, is that if the crimes committed by the government are so severe as to require bloodshed on the part of the citizens, the populace as a whole will rise up in rebellion. Not that any one individual should have the right to bring down the government. It's sort of the last word in democracy; if enough of the people want change, and the only way to get it is through rebellion, then they will get it. The price would be high, but we already know how they felt about that.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbit it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Libery or give me Death!" --Patrick Henry
- Ozymandias
[ Parent ]

Re: Better a gun nut than a fool (none / 0) (#90)
by mattm on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 01:22:40 AM EST

The closed-source product is now free, has three times the features of the open-source product, and includes a $100 bill. Which do you choose?

You might be sitting there saying "the open-source one," but you're lying. ... Very few people would choose the open-source product, and even THEY would get the closed-source one, just for the free $100.

Frankly, I'd choose the open-source product, since it seems to me that "free" bonuses like your hypothetical $100 is just a carrot to lure users into submitting personal info to marketing [noun expurgated out of respect for mustelids]. Net Zero, anyone? (And the first person to argue that advertising is required to keep things going gets spit in the eye. What keeps my ISP going is the $19.95/mo. I and other subscribers send to it.)



[ Parent ]
Re: Better a gun nut than a fool (none / 0) (#95)
by Ozymandias on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 01:31:38 PM EST

(And the first person to argue that advertising is required to keep things going gets spit in the eye. What keeps my ISP going is the $19.95/mo. I and other subscribers send to it.)

Nope. I worked for an ISP for a while. Your $19.95 barely paid back the overhead; in fact, it hardly ever did that. What kept the ISP going were the revenues generated by A) selling the subscriber list, and B) the big clients who need more than a dial-up. The dial-up users simply help you get your name out.

And since it's a hypothetical situation, let's just pretend the company involved isn't ASKING for information. Through some mystical portal, you can download the software and get $100 without them ever knowing where exactly it went. (And don't talk to me about how that's impossible. I already said "let's pretend.")
- Ozymandias
[ Parent ]

Re: aside to author (none / 0) (#56)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 07:28:07 AM EST

Now, that said, to actually parody some of your points:
> This is all done tongue-in-cheek to demonstrate that the very same
> arguments could be used, unchanged in their essentials, to support
> the opposite position -- a pretty good indicator that little of substance
> has been established...
Do you really find a left-wing commie-nut more convincing than ESR? I have usually found the opposite to be true. Yeah, sure, "Fathead" is a true kernel hacker's nightmare. But read the stuff on the website. He has put together a cogent philosophy designed to underpin open source software. I started off with linux seeing mostly the "free speech" aspect; it was ESR's essays that made me see there was a lot more to it than that. This was after Stallman's self-incarnation as a GNU/"Free Software" propagandist, but even so, he's raved so maniacally, and diluted it with so many of his own silly ideas, that I know I have found him far from convincing.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: aside to author: Your Britishness i... (none / 0) (#43)
by ross finlayson on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 04:27:36 AM EST

Re. "He has had his fingers in quite a few projects (including documentation and RFCs)".

According to the IETF's RFC database, no RFC has an author named "Raymond".

It's difficult to see how ESR can be considered one of the "senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work".

[ Parent ]

Eric Raymond should have stopped af... (4.00 / 1) (#10)
by End on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 05:38:11 PM EST

End voted 0 on this story.

Eric Raymond should have stopped after the Hacker's Dictionary...

-JD

I don't know enough about ESR's his... (3.50 / 2) (#4)
by FlinkDelDinky on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 05:44:14 PM EST

FlinkDelDinky voted 1 on this story.

I don't know enough about ESR's history to pass judgement on his statements. He may very well have been in a garage somewhere with Al Gore coding up a storm. Who know's?

What's a core Linux developer anyway? A kernel, compiler, or glib coder? We've all got to use those things. What about Apache or XFree? Are those "non-core" contributions to Linux? After all they're used on all kinds of OS's. What about Rusty's scoop? As a user I think it's a (time) killer app. Core or non-core?

In the article it sounds like he's just providing background and a little chest beating.

Re: I don't know enough about ESR's his... (3.00 / 1) (#22)
by CmdrPinkTaco on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 07:36:22 PM EST

ugh, you rat bastard....you stole my comment....I was going to say something incredibly witty about ESR and Al Gore doing something with the internet. You'll see, next time I'll be the first to make that comment and you'll be sorry. You and your meddeling kids...

Man, I need to lay off of the scooby doo reruns, sorry about the rant :)
--
Guess CmdrPinkTaco's .sig and win - nothing :)
[ Parent ]
Re: I don't know enough about ESR's his... (4.00 / 1) (#23)
by Paul Dunne on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 07:38:57 PM EST

Well, core is opposed to periphery, isn't it? The core is the essential part. If Alan Cox dropped out tomorrow, someone would have to take his place, because he's a core Linux developer. What equivalent work on Linux does Eric Raymond do? You might as well call me a core Linux developer while you're about it (but make my shares blue-chip, please). I guess it was the phrasing that really got my goat: he could well claim to be a "core Open Source activist"; but core developer he simply is not. And don't even get me started on "senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work" -- yeah, him and Al Gore both.
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
[ Parent ]
Re: I don't know enough about ESR's his... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Skyshadow on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 10:12:49 PM EST

The really ironic thing about this, the thing that puts it all into perspective is the fact that Linus Torvolds considers himself expendible but ESR does not.

Realistically, the world and (more importantly) OSS movement would keep turning even without ESR's guiding hand at the wheel. If the net keeps on ticking without real pioneers like Jon Postel, it certainly doesn't need Raymond's permission to keep working.

[ Parent ]

who cares about baggin' on ESR?... (1.50 / 2) (#6)
by pope nihil on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 06:02:59 PM EST

pope nihil voted -1 on this story.

who cares about baggin' on ESR?

I voted.

I can see this thread erupting into... (3.00 / 1) (#5)
by evro on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 06:06:00 PM EST

evro voted -1 on this story.

I can see this thread erupting into a "Bash ESR" fest. ESR promotes open source. AFAIK, that's all he does. If he thinks he "makes the internet work," he either knows something we don't, or is just plain crazy. Are you sure ESR wrote that, and not a slashdot impostor?
---
"Asking me who to follow -- don't ask me, I don't know!"

Re: I can see this thread erupting into... (2.00 / 1) (#21)
by Paul Dunne on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 07:32:46 PM EST

> Are you sure ESR wrote that, and not a slashdot impostor?

Yes. I should perhaps have made more clear that the quote was from the debate that slashdot linked to, not from slashdot itself. Raymond's contribution is in two parts: part one and part two.
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
[ Parent ]

esr has done quite a bit for the in... (2.50 / 2) (#16)
by sness on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 06:07:46 PM EST

sness voted -1 on this story.

esr has done quite a bit for the internet and open source communities, including lots of coding, so I don't think this is *too* far out. Anyways, he's part of the devteam for Nethack! How more core could that be!

Isn't his gift to the world fetchma... (4.00 / 1) (#13)
by ishbak on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 06:17:39 PM EST

ishbak voted 1 on this story.

Isn't his gift to the world fetchmail? I think he has issues...

Well, put in fine cheeky Paul Dunne... (3.00 / 1) (#1)
by rusty on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 06:48:41 PM EST

rusty voted 1 on this story.

Well, put in fine cheeky Paul Dunne style, but a valid question nevertheless. There is no doubt in my mind that ESR has been one of the more important Linux developers, in the past, if only for his eloquence in representing the project to the generally uncomprehending outside world. His actual coding has not been his main contribution lately however. Is it time for the "old guard" to step aside? And more importantly, is there anyone out there who could *do* ESR's job?

____
Not the real rusty

Re: Well, put in fine cheeky Paul Dunne... (none / 0) (#19)
by fvw on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 07:18:16 PM EST

And more importantly, is there anyone out there who could *do* ESR's job?

If you're talking about the code he maintains: maybe, quite possibly actually. However if you're talking about this whole open source advocate thingy: Please, let nobody do this. The only thing pretending to talk for 'the community' (which is by itself a very unstable definition imho) will do is make a lot of people very angry. Coding: fine. Giving your opinion: fine. Pretending to speak for everyone: No.

[ Parent ]
Re: Well, put in fine cheeky Paul Dunne... (none / 0) (#32)
by captain larry on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 11:03:32 PM EST

bruce perens already does much of the same things that esr does, and from what i see, is more activiely involved in actually *doing* open source stuff then esr. he was one of the main movers and shakers behind debian, software in the public interest, getting the open source movement (as oposed to free software) going, runs technocrat.net and is starting up a firm which finds venture captital for start up open source companies (i think, i honestly don't know much about it). he has also written a bunch of code for debian and some other open source stuff (can't remember what right now).

back when he was actively invovled in debian i was always very impressed with the way he handled himself on the mailing lists (from answering beginers questions to dealing with personal attacks).

i like what i've seen of him, he seems smart, committed to what's best for the opensource community and seems to be willing to seek middle ground without being willing to compromise what he believes is "right".

i have an enourmous amount of respect for both him and rms. i believe that it was rms' personal idealism that got this whole thing started, and while he is a little out there (i've seen his public speeches a couple times and they are entertaining :-), often that's what it takes to make big things happen.
-- Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. - Pablo Picasso
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, put in fine cheeky Paul Dunne... (none / 0) (#33)
by rusty on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 11:11:01 PM EST

I totally agree with this. If it were to come to that, I also think Bruce Perens would be a great person to fill the role of "respectable Linux speaker". RMS is basically the saint at this point-- he's a great moral example to point to, but no one wants a saint running the government. :-) ESR is, or tries to be, the face of Linux for business folks. But I think he may be starting to run low on credibility. Perens, besides being (almost) always a pretty reasonable guy, is a good example fo someone who, as you put it, "does things." Barring a couple of temper tantrum I think he's generally done a good job of quiet but convincing Linux advocacy. And in case anyone here isn't familiar with it yet, his website is Technocrat.net, and is another of the pleasant low-noise, high-signal linux discussion sites. Now if only he'd convert it over to Scoop... Hmmm. :-)

Nah, I'm pretty sure he invested some money in the squishdot developers (or ZOPE, or some related group). If anyone wants to recommend it to him though, feel free. :-) MySQL isn't open source though, so I don't see it happening.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, put in fine cheeky Paul Dunne... (none / 0) (#34)
by bgdarnel on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 12:03:37 AM EST

I'm pretty sure he invested some money in the squishdot developers
I don't think he directly invested any money, but IIRC he is hosting the squishdot.org website on the same machine that runs technocrat.net.

[ Parent ]
Re: Well, put in fine cheeky Paul Dunne... (none / 0) (#35)
by rusty on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 12:06:04 AM EST

I knew there was some support given. Matter of fact, there's a new article on the Scoop dev site now about Scoop vs. Squishdot. If you have any experience with Squish, do tell. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: Well, put in fine cheeky Paul Dunne... (none / 0) (#54)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 07:18:15 AM EST

I don't know if I'd call RMS a saint.

A wild-eyed visionary, certainly. Daring revolutionary, absolutely. Raving Lunatic, maybe. Saint, no.



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Re: Well, put in fine cheeky Paul Dunne... (none / 0) (#59)
by rusty on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 07:41:31 AM EST

"Saint" was metaphorical. If linux were a traditional religion ( ;-) ), he would be our "saint"-- but right now, we'd be at that stage where a leader who can talk sense to Pharaoh would be more immediately practical to have.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: Well, put in fine cheeky Paul Dunne... (none / 0) (#61)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 07:47:13 AM EST

I certainly can't argue with that....

...though, hopefully the leader will be able to drown the pharaoh's army if/when it becomes time to run away. :P :)



--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
modesty (3.00 / 1) (#18)
by neonman on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 07:04:52 PM EST

gosh... Even if his claims do have merrit, the issue of modesty is even more important. I wouldn't have ever thought that ESR would be a person to talk about himself in that way.
_________________________
Aaron Grogan
aaron@stufflikethat.org
http://stufflikethat.org/
Re: Representative? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by Paul Dunne on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 07:21:41 PM EST

OK, well I think the best thing is to reply to some points raised during the voting, and expand a bit on what I meant to do by posting this.

First off, this wasn't mean as a troll or flamebait. I did actually think I might be missing something (unlikely, I know, but even Homer nods); and if I wasn't, I thought it was well worth talking about. Why? Well, Eric Raymond seems to regard himself as the spokesman of not just the Linux world but of free software in general. That's OK as far as it goes; but when he tries to pass off his wacky political views, not as his personal opinions, but as the opinions of Torvalds, Cox, and for all I know, me and Rusty and Rusty's cat, that's something else. Read that debate I gave a link to. Again and again, he uses such phrases as "we as a community": we've this, we've that. Who elected him?

Rusty says I'm cheeky! Cheeky? Moi? Well, I do regret that final line, which does imply that he hasn't played a major part in *anything* concerning free software. He has been *the* major PR man these last few years. But remember his own words (to RMS, ironically): "shut up and show them the code". Free software is just that: free *software*; it's all about source code. So, if one styles oneself a "core Linux and open-source developer", then one must expect the response "show us the code". But what code is there? Check the /usr/src/linux/CREDITS:

D: terminfo master file maintainer
D: Editor: Installation HOWTO, Distributions HOWTO, XFree86 HOWTO
D: Author: fetchmail, Emacs VC mode, Emacs GUD mode

Hmm. Am I wrong, or is he the only person to achieve the feat of getting himself listed in that file without having contributed *anything* to the kernel? Certainly, he has hacked on free software in the past, and continues to maintain fetchmail and the terminfo database. But "core Linux developer"? No.

As for "of the senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work", this beggars belief. Does he run CIX? I think we should be told.


http://dunne.home.dhs.org/

Re: Representative? (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous Hero on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 03:52:36 AM EST

I don't know about "core linux developer," but ESR has contributed quite a lot. Take a look at this link, which lists several dozen programs ESR has written. That's more than most people can say. As far as views go, I tend ti side with ESR a lot more than RMS; I find RMS's neo-communism a bit extreme, and I don't think there is anything morally wrong with commercial software. If you work hard on something, and want to sell it, that's your business.

[ Parent ]
Re: Representative? (none / 0) (#48)
by Paul Dunne on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 05:23:39 AM EST

Did you actually have a read of that list you've pointed at (you're not the first to point to it, and I did in another post as well)? If you do find the time to read it, you'll discover:

a) Most of the stuff is trivia, on a par with (and I quote)

ascii-2.7 (source) (RPM) (SRPM)

My utility for displaying alternate names and notations of a given ASCII character, sort of an interactive reference chart. Also handy as a quick base converter for byte values.

(Isn't this the sort of thing most budding programs write and forget?)

b) Most is adopted, not original. Nothing wrong with adopting unmaintained code, but it isn't the same as writing it in the first place.

c) There's not one piece of "core Linux" development there, which was my main point.

Yes, Eric Raymond has written free software. So have lots of other people, who don't make the same grandiose claims for their significance and importance.
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
[ Parent ]

Re: Representative? (none / 0) (#83)
by Inoshiro on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 03:29:25 PM EST

Some of those programs are what I'd call "simple, but required" .. they're all nifty little utilities. So the guy sometimes oversteps the agreed bounds, so what. He still contributed to the community in some way. That's good enough for me ;-)

--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Re: Representative? (none / 0) (#41)
by Inoshiro on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 04:06:15 AM EST

N: Phil Lewis
E: beans@bucket.ualr.edu
D: Promised to send money if I would put his name in the source tree.
S: PO Box 371
S: North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115
S: US
        -- /usr/src/linux/CREDITS
HTH. HAND. :^)

--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Re: Representative? (none / 0) (#47)
by Paul Dunne on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 05:16:32 AM EST

Touché! OK, one of only two people to... etc...
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
[ Parent ]
Re: Representative? (none / 0) (#84)
by rusty on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 03:47:20 PM EST

Our chief weapon is fear. Fear and Surprise, surprise and fear. Our two chief weapons are fear and surprise. And Ruthless Efficiency... :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: Representative? (2.50 / 2) (#24)
by gnuchris on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 07:47:18 PM EST

I just logged onto Kuro5hin to post a similar story.. I like some of Eric's writings.. especailly the Cathedral and the Bazzaar.. but he is not our representitive.. who elected him? Who even supports him?? Eric wrote a good book, and got on the board of a few companies and now he claims he represents us... What part of the kernel did he write?
"He had alot to say, He had alot of nothing to say" -TOOL-
ESR is an unimpressive blowhard (4.00 / 1) (#26)
by fluffy grue on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 08:32:47 PM EST

At the risk of sounding like an ESR-basher, here's what I feel about ESR.

1. He's got a HUGE ego, and thinks he speaks for all of us. Witness the whole debacle with the RUMOR that the Chinese government was going to adopt RedHat as their official OS. He SPOKE FOR EVERYONE saying how bad it'd be if they did such a thing, because somehow that'd make everyone hate Linux (to paraphrase, "Hitler wore khakis" or "Hitler was a vegetarian," two ludicrous arguments I've seen seriously used against wearing khakis or being a vegetarian).

2. He is certainly NOT at the core of ANYTHING. He wrote Fetchmail, and a few HOWTOs, and a couple of minor modes for Emacs. Big whoop. Anyone could easily replace him on that front.

3. He's written a few nice essays which open the eyes of marketroids to open source (not even Free) software, and led to the (thankfully short-lived) mentality that open source is a magic thing which'll make anything instantly better.

4. He's pretentious. I was a participant in LokiHack. I placed in the top 5. ESR was a participant in LokiHack. He didn't even BOTHER to code anything, he just sat there being famous. ESR got a lot of recognition for simply being there. Yes, I'm jealous, but (IMO) rightfully so. Maybe other people will remember when he wrote an "insightful" article on Slashdot, "whining" about how rich he suddenly was after the VA IPO.

5. He doesn't know when to let things end. Remember the tiff between Bruce Parens? BP has tried to make amends, apologizing and whatnot at every opportunity. ESR continues to drag this grudge out, and in doing so only makes himself look like an ass, which he is.

6. He's an irrational bigot. I'm not talking race or gender or religion, but politics. The only right political party to him is libertarianism. According to him, we shouldn't have taxes, and yet the government should still provide its core services (or is it that everything should be privatized? yes, I'd like to have to schedule an appointment for the firefighters to come...), and there shouldn't be any laws because people should be smart enough to regulate themselves (hellooo? people aren't!). Democrats are whining idiots to him. Republicans are fascists. He doesn't hide these biases, and he assumes that everyone in the Open Source(tm) community will automatically agree with him because he's obviously right and anyone who isn't is Dumb. Whatever.

As far as I'm concerned, ESR is someone who's been at the right place at the right time and wrote the right pseudo-insightful tripe to be seen by the right people and is now a multi-millionaire egomaniac who thinks he speaks for anyone who knows C. I'd rather he just had a (non-fatal, but crippling) accident at the next Geeks with Guns meeting so that we can all just get on with our lives.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Re: ESR is an unimpressive blowhard (none / 0) (#30)
by Skyshadow on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 10:36:40 PM EST

I'd rather he just had a (non-fatal, but crippling) accident at the next Geeks with Guns meeting so that we can all just get on with our lives.

Or we could all, you know, just stop paying attention to him. Might be easier and less bloody than the "cripple 'em" route. Just my two cents.

[ Parent ]

Re: ESR is an unimpressive blowhard (none / 0) (#31)
by fluffy grue on Tue Apr 25, 2000 at 11:02:54 PM EST

The problem isn't people within the "scene" paying attention to him, it's with people on the outside. I bet a lot of managers who are interested in OSS now think that ESR actually IS our spokesperson (then again, ESR thinks he is too, apparently). A crippling accident would probably give him some sort of humility, which is something he is definitely greatly lacking.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Re: ESR is an unimpressive blowhard (none / 0) (#53)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 07:13:50 AM EST

There is an inevitable escalation to wishing someone any kind of an accident, much less a maiming or fatal one (especially since it is such a very fine line between an accident that maims and one that kills).

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly wonder about someone who wishes that other people were maimed/killed...

These are the things I wonder, and are not specifically directed at this case:

  • How would they feel if someone wished the same of them?
  • Are they willing to put their money where their mouth is, and do the maiming/killing? Or are they just full of hot air?
  • Or would they just "turn people in" and hope for double bonus points so that someone else does the maiming/killing?



    --
    A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
    Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

    [ Parent ]
  • Re: ESR is an unimpressive blowhard (none / 0) (#82)
    by fluffy grue on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 01:42:06 PM EST

    • How would they feel if someone wished the same of them?

      Annoyed, but unsurprised. I know lots of people wish that of me, to varying degrees of seriousness. I'm personally not at all serious.

    • Are they willing to put their money where their mouth is, and do the maiming/killing? Or are they just full of hot air?

      Full of hot air and thus letting out steam. If I'd actually wanted to maim/kill ESR, I'd have had plenty of opportunities to do so at LokiHack.

    • Or would they just "turn people in" and hope for double bonus points so that someone else does the maiming/killing?

      What, to the mob or something? Or hiring a hitman, or what?


    --
    "Is not a quine" is not a quine.
    I have a master's degree in science!

    [ Hug Your Trikuare ]
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Representative? (none / 0) (#36)
    by mattc on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 01:55:51 AM EST

    Heh. I'm glad to see I am not the only one rubbed the wrong way by ESR's "philosophy" and excessive use of the royal We. :-)

    Actually, I had a really long post typed up in reply to this but netscape locked up before I could post it (is shift+insert the 'netscape crash' key or what??)

    Anyway, rather than attack ESR I think it would be a better idea to lean towards the more level headed members of the Free Software/Open Source movement like Linus, Alan Cox, and Bruce Parens (I'm sure there are other contributors who would be good spokespersons too). Compared to ESR, even RMS seems level-headed :-) It would be a shame to see the linux movement go down in flames because of personal conflict - anyone who wants to be a linux spokesperson should add a disclaimer "These are only MY views and not the views of every linux user." especially when it comes to areas that are not computer software related.

    - Proud owner of NO guns and a non-objectivist

    OT Netscape. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Inoshiro on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 03:30:21 AM EST

    I think there's some issue with Motif and normal cut/copy/paste hot keys. Ctrl+ins, shif+ins, and ctrl+del tend to destroy Netscape very quickly.. After a little bit of crash/negative reinforncement, I found that middle-click pasting works very reliably in Netscape :-)

    --
    [ イノシロ ]
    [ Parent ]
    Re: OT Netscape. (none / 0) (#57)
    by rusty on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 07:34:05 AM EST

    Also, the textarea widget leaks memory (and has since like 4.0). The longer the text you put in there, the faster it gobbles up your RAM. I highly recommend writing long comments in a text editor, and pasting them in.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    ESR's Testament (none / 0) (#44)
    by Markee on Wed Apr 26, 2000 at 04:48:54 AM EST

    Eric S. Raymond, being a consequent open source developer, has open sourced even his testament. Well, almost. He lists the people he wants to take over his project in case he "falls off the net", as he puts it.

    Looking at that list of projects, I don't see a single "core Linux" or even core Internet program. Given that ESR wants these projects to live, I assume he considers them the most important ones. Even if these programs would vanish from earth in a snap by magic, the world would continue spinning, and, almost more importantly, the Internet and Linux would work just the same.

    So, in my opinion, ESRs claims are arrogant and egocentrical.

    Representative? | 95 comments (95 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!