something that was once "Re: Powerbook Setup" but which is now something more akin to Remedial Debating 101

[Chris Pressey]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:05:41 +0100
Paul Robinson <paul at iconoplex.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:15:18PM -0700, Chris Pressey wrote:
> 
> > Sure.  But who is saying that open-source is the greatest thing
> > ever? 
> 
> Lots of people, me included.

So - you would give your life for Open Source?

Of course not, that's merely illustrative - and since you apparently
missed it last time, I'll spell out what I'm saying this time.  My
problem is not nearly as much with your point as it is with the quality
of your rhetoric.  It's really, really awful.  At various points it's
loaded with hyperbole (see above, and below,) superciliousness ("You're
going backwards, I'm sticking with FreeBSD and moving forwards",)
dysphemism ("Fisher Price Unix") and it generally carries a tone of
hysteria throughout it.  I'm not entirely convinced you're a troll, as
has been suggested - but if not, you're damned near.  You might want to
consider this message a red flag in that regard.

> Admittedly, we disagree on details, but
> there are plenty of people out there who see the potential for open
> source to be as big a revolution to the information age as the wheel
> was to the dawn of commerce.

Which (to make extra-sure we're on the same page on this) is still a
far cry from being "the best thing ever".  You do understand that, I
hope.

> > The BSD license lets Apple close their source.  If you don't like
> > that, perhaps you would find more appeal in the GPL, which - in its
> > own way - tries harder to prevent that.
> 
> I don't have a problem with the BSD license. In fact, I have been the
> proponent on this list in years past of trying to identify which GPL
> bits of FreeBSD could be easily replaced (answer: there were about 20
> components, all of them pretty much irreplaceable without huge amounts
> of work). My problem with Apple is not that is has closed its source.

Hold that thought...

> My problem is with people who proclaim BSD is the most wonderful
> license in the world

(there you go with the hyperbole again - I doubt there really are such
people who have said that in seriousness)

> then drop it like a hot brick to go and buy into
> closed source. It's not as if they went to work on GPL stuff here -
> they're abondoning open source in it's entirety.  Doesn't anybody else
> see that as even remotely damaging in any way?

Giving some concrete examples would help your argument here.  Who,
specifically, has left open-source, never to come back?  (Maybe I missed
mention of a specific name previously in this thread, in which case I
apologize.)

Also - let's be specific here, there are two types of people "moving
away" - open-source developers and open-source consumers.  The loss of
the first type is, I think, far more significant than the loss of the
second; but I think it's the second type who are those you see moving
the most (I would guess they're more subject to Apple's "sex appeal"
than dyed-in-the-wool coders.)  Since the consumers don't develop
open-source, it's reasonable to say that very little is lost when they
"move".  Further, the first type can be split even more finely into two
subgroups - those developers who now *only* develop closed-source, and
those who continue to develop open-source.  Again, the first type is
a bigger loss to open-source, but I imagine, far more the minority.

In short, I believe you're blowing things WAY out of proportion.

> Closed source is a problem for me on several levels. For example:

Now bring back that thought I told you to hold.  I thought your problem
with Apple was *not* that they closed source?  If not that, then what?

> Excuse #234 for switching to Mac OS X: "I used to get by fine with
> OpenOffice, but the great thing about OS X is that I can give
> Microsoft$500 and run their office suite perpetuating their lock-in on
> that market. I don't care we've been fighting for the last decade and
> a half, and oh by the way, when I said I didn't like MS' closed
> standards on their file formats, I was obviously lying! Hahaha!"
> 
> Please, somebody tell me they can see where I'm going on this?

I dunno.  It is an exercise in gross caricature?

> Am I completely alone here?

Possibly.  I don't see myself as "fighting" Apple, Microsoft, or any
other tech company, just because I develop open-source software.  They
have as much right to try to make a buck with their software as I have a
right to choose not to with mine.

> > I can't, because I infer from the above that you believe that
> > politics is less vacuous than style.  I'm not sure I agree.  From
> > what I've seen of it, politics is pretty darn vacuous.
> 
> Depends on the type of politics. When you have a bunch of people
> spewing rhetoric to sycophantically curry favour with an electorate,
> it's vacuous. 
>
> When your boss comes to you and says you've got a £300k contract with
> a company that has a load of code in ASP.NET, it's not. To turn around
> and say "well, I'm not running that code because it won't run on my
> Unix boxes" is going to get me fired. But if I'm specifying which
> companies go on the list for procurement in the first place, I have
> some greater degree of control, which is also politics, but is not
> particularly vacuous.

So it's OK to be a whore to closed-source if you're "just following
orders" as part of your job?  The developers who have "left" for Apple
have to eat too.  If you are asking them to be so principled in their
attitudes towards open-source that they refuse employment on that basis,
is it not fair to ask you to do the same?

> > IMHO: Make support for FreeBSD more accessible than support for OS
> > X.
> 
> Well, am I right in thinking there are two routes here you may be
> suggesting:
> 
> 1. Reduce the learning overhead for casual use of FreeBSD by cleaning
> up some of the dumber interfaces. You know, this is a bikeshed that
> has been running around for two years - "We need a new installer", "We
> need better integration between system tools and KDE/Gnome", "We need
> better package management"... all are true, but nobody agrees on how
> to proceed. 
>
> Especially as so many people don't think FreeBSD should have any 
> development effort orientated towards the desktop space - many people
> see FreeBSD as a purely server-based operating system.

(Further to that - those who control the FreeBSD project don't see a
server-based operating system *needing* a better user interface.  I'll
return to this in a moment)

> Maybe I "don't get it" because I use it as a desktop, and all the guys
> running off to the Apple Store waving their credit cards "don't get
> it" because they think FreeBSD can only be used on servers. Who knows?
>
> 2. Increase the visibility of local organisations that can offer
> support on FreeBSD. I work with an organisation that assists local
> tech businesses in becoming more aware of non-tech issues. We
> sometimes interface with other public bodies who are attempting to
> promote open source within small businesses. Their number one barrier
> for open source getting onto the desks of SMEs: support. A SME can
> pick up the phone and get somebody to come and install an Exchange
> server and stay on retainer for a few hundred a month quite easily.
> Can they find people who will come and install an open source
> solution? Nope.
>
> Is that it? Or am I missing something else?

The last half of that last paragraph is what I was referring to, yes.
Support for FreeBSD, compared to Windows or OS X, is essentially
non-existent.

Note that I didn't say I thought it was possible to change the
situation; I was merely answering your question "OK, but what would it
take for you to see FreeBSD + X + whatever is better than OS X?"

In fact I don't think it IS possible.  Commercial projects almost always
get more exposure than open-source projects - Linux being the only
exception I can think of ATM.

I live in a city of over 2.5 million.  At the last BSD user group
meeting, about nine people showed up.  It's hard to write a business
plan based on selling FreeBSD support when so few people use it and
those who do are generally capable of maintaining their own systems.

> > False dilemma, I think.  Everyone is free to do as they like. 
> > You're free to try to pursuade them to stay if you choose, as well,
> > although advocacy@ might be a more appropriate venue for that.  My
> > point is that I don't think Apple-bashing (deserved or not) is going
> > to be very persuasive to most people, so if that's your goal, my
> > recommendation would be to change tack.
> 
> I don't think this is pure -advocacy material. For a start, that lot
> are mental. Secondly, if I'm trying to get an idea of why people are
> dropping *BSD in favour of another flavour, they're not going to be on
> -advocacy. They're more likely to be here if they are still in a
> transitional state.
>
> I am an Apple-basher in real life, but my purpose here (despite
> starting out bashing Apple kit) is now to try and find the gap*
> between the perception of this project and that of OS X and understand
> why people are running away from *BSD in general on the desktop.
>
> * - in the case of Apple users, they're probably more familiar with
> GAP. See, I just can't help myself. Perhaps I have a problem with
> loafers and goatee beards. :-)

Here's my two cents re that perceptual gap, as it pertains to your
argument.  Unix traditionalists are as dismissive of desktops as you are
of fashion.  A desktop is, to them, just as much of a crutch for getting
work done as a goatee is, to you, a crutch for maintaining status among
similarly image-concerned people.  Now, there may not even be any pure
Unix traditionalists left in the FreeBSD project anymore - but even so,
the attitude remains in the culture (subconsciously, if you like,) as
institutions resist change as time goes on.  For that reason, those who
control the source will always have that bias - they'll always be more
interested in making the system "MP-friendly", for example, than making
it "user-friendly".

I'm not doing all this typing because I disagree with your points (in
fact I'm still mostly undecided) - it's mainly a reaction to your style
of argumentation.  The point from my previous e-mail still stands.  If
you want to make a stronger argument, cut the hyperbole, quit the
rhetorical questions that just sound whiny, and leave your antagonism at
the door.

If we pride ourselves on using BSD because we have good reasons for
doing so, then our arguments for doing so damned well ought to be
well-reasoned too.

-Chris