Note: This is a follow up to my blog entry earlier in the week titled "founding philosophers". If you have not read that one yet, please do so before continuing here.
Pondering the "big questions" is all well and good, but it matters little if words are the only results. To have an effect, the ideas need to be translated into action and Free software did that in a big way. While GNU Hurd may not have gotten very far, the Linux kernel certainly did as did thousands of other Free software projects big and small.
These efforts were by and large led by pragmatic individuals who were drawn to the idea(ls) of Free software but who had a focus on producing working technology. Thanks to their committed efforts, Free software has become a global force both in terms of technology and the size of the industry based around these efforts. Whether we look at Apple's successful rejuvenation by taking Free software and crafting OS X from it, Google with both its search empire and Android mobile OS, IBM's backing of Linux or Red Hat's successful climb to 1 billion in annual revenue, it is undeniable that Free software's ideals have translated quite clearly into tangible results.
In the process of achieving world domination, the philosophizing was largely factored out of the community. I mentioned a few individuals in the "founding philosophers" entry, and I think it is interesting to examine what happened with them.
Admittedly, it is extremely difficult to remain relevant in a growing and shifting community for an extended period of time. There are means, however, such as refreshing one's image and message over time. In contrast to Madonna's ability to remake herself to remain relevant, Richard Stallman continued his largely monotone quest for software freedom. He spent much time and energy on trying to get "GNU" tacked on to "Linux" or insisting people say "free" rather than "open source". The increasingly pragmatic Free software world grew increasingly less interested in these sorts of discussions and as a result the influence of the FSF waned in many areas. Richard is still widely admired, often quoted and certainly relevant, but he isn't breaking new ground in quite the same fashion he did in the 20th century. During this same period of time, the rather more pragmatic and action focused FSFE has risen in importance and respect.
As for Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens, they both fell to the same arrows: a lack of new ideas combined with increasing partisanship. The latter issue is particularly interesting because it highlights a significantly negative shift that the pragmatism may have inadvertently brought with it.
For instance, in 2004 Eric proclaimed on a popular (at the time) Free software podcast that KDE would be dead as a project by the same time the next year. I also recall the day that Bruce sent an email saying that not only would his new brain child User Linux not include KDE or PostgreSQL by default but that he would not abide anyone else working on support for them on top of User Linux. The message was clear: not all Free software efforts were welcome.
Personally, this ran completely counter to my expectations, namely: we're all doing this for the betterment of each other (globally) as well as to have fun, build wonderful communities (which is a very human desire) and make great technology. To that end, no Free software is bad or should be called out for extermination, even in the case that we personally don't see much value in them. There is a fine difference between "I'm not interested in..." and "I think it should die"; between "I want this to succeed..." and "Success means the failure of alternatives..". This change in attitude grew alongside the wonderful achievements of the Free software pragmatists. Were the two processes related?
During this period, another interesting attribute began to develop: Free software communities started measuring success based on traditional market metrics: total cost of ownership, market share, etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with such metrics and they can make for great goals to reach for, particularly as they influence the adoption of Free software. However, are they really the measure of success?
By way of example: If we follow the mainstream tech media, desktop Linux's small global market share does indeed mean it has "failed". Some who do or have in the past worked on Free software desktop components have bought into this thinking. Stepping back for a moment, though, I have to ask myself: "Is a dominant share of the global desktop market the only or primary reason I'm doing this? Or would that simply be a great result, a goal to strive for?" It all seems a bit like telling a self-made millionaire who got there by doing what they love that they have failed because they aren't a billionaire. These are perhaps more philosophical that pragmatic ponderings, however, and Free software has increasingly become less philosophical.
The advances of Free software under the hands of the pragmatists have been fantastic and in many cases gone beyond all possible expectations of greatness. However, the partisanship that paralleled this has resulted in Free software competing against itself in various, and I would suggest unhealthy, ways. It even undermined the founding philosophers who lost themselves to naming struggles ("It's GNU/Linux..") or rooting against Free software efforts they personally didn't like. It also distorted our own sense of success and failure where only being #1 globally was good enough. Of course we must ask ourselves: does it matter that these shifts have taken place?
As Free software has evolved, several "big questions" have arisen as can be seen from the various outbursts of contention around contributor agreements ("CLA"s). Many such issues remain precariously open and could use with some critical thinking, popular essay writing and public discourse. At the same time, we are left without many philosophers amongst the "A-list" Free software personalities. Today, they are much more likely to be cut of the pragmatist cloth, and this is a polar shift from where we left off in "founding philosophers".
(.. and no, I'm not yet done with this blog entry series. You probably now understand why I've broken it up into a series. ;)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Google would say: Did you mean "pragmatists"?
(Look at the title.) :-)
wow, great series! Keep them coming! :)
Interesting beginning, I look forward to read the rest. Judging by the first part, I think you may be interested in reading a recent post of mine on a similar topic: With leaders like these, Free Software will never win
There is no reason that pragmatism can't openly coexist with the 'Greater' philosophical nature of the 'Open Source Movement'. In fact they can often be mutually beneficial.
At their cores these are just two forces providing drive behind the movement. Much as the spiritual and physical needs/goals drive us to achievement, so do these two thought patterns' goals drive the movement towards achievement.
The goal of each independent project should be to incorporate both drives as best they can into a complete open package.
As much as it does no good to dwell on theory and ignore reality, the reverse is also true. A truly healthy open source movement will be driven to accomplish both the pragmatic and philosophical goals. And success should be measured as such.
You should join google plus, Aaron. :)
@Alvaro: yes, i changed the title at the last minute and then hit "publish" ... only minutes later did i see the typo and by then it had been picked up by some of the agregators i'm on.. bwah! :)
@Mim: you're going in the direction i'm heading with this series! :) i agree that we need both, that either alone will fall short .. right now we have too little philosophizing going on imho, and we need to take a long hard look at some of the things this has resulted in (i hinted at partisanship in this article; the next one in the series will look at tribalism vs partisanship, true community versus constructed community) ..
and at the end of the series i'll ... well ... i'll let that still be a surprise ;)
@Bassboy: why? (serious question, as the reason i'm not there is i don't have a good reason to be :)
Aaron, you might find this post on KubuntuForums.net interesting. Steve Riley installed Plasma-Active on a Samsung 700t and shows a video of his results:
Plasma-Active-Two on my Samsung Tablet
GreyGeek
The last time there was a series of blog posts by aseigo, it ended up with the announcement of Spark (now Vivaldi).
Let's wait and see what happens now.
>@Bassboy: why? (serious question, as the reason i'm not there is i don't have a good reason to be :)
1. There are a lot of Open Source and General software enthusiasts on there.
2. For some reason, I have seen that posts (or even just links to blog posts), generate a lot of discussion there.
3. It's easier to follow people on G+ than on rss readers.
Just my 2 cents. :)
Aaron, I have tremendous respect for you, and I am eternally grateful for your efforts in making KDE a success.
That said, I am afraid you have chosen a slippery slope for the blog series. AFAIK, FSF were instrumental in solving the licensing issues surrounding Qt (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE#Licensing), so your account of it here seems disrespectful to me. I am one of those who believe Red Hat rose to their current level of success exactly because they did not compromise on freedom. Then again I do want the Vivaldi, and I understand that we need to live with closed drivers on some devices until we can gain some traction. Still, I hope FSF and RMS can continue to be a beacon of moral standards, I believe we need it. Distancing ourselves from the people you name here is not doing anybody any good.
@Del: "so your account of it here seems disrespectful to me."
it really was not meant to be disrespectful. rather, it's an attempt to look at how things are, even if they aren't 100% how we'd like them to be. we need to do this as a community to avoid drifting into problems (well, i actually believe we're already there in some ways ...)
i wrote what i did because i care deeply about the ethical position the FSF champions.
if you compare the standing of the FSF in, say, 1997 with today (15 years in between) it is hard to deny that the FSF has lost some of its clout. back then, when the FSF spoke, people listened. today .. it's not so influential.
personally, i believe this is largely due to the increased amount of pragmatic efforts which makes the philophical, ethical message of the FSF harder to translate in a meaningful way to people doing Free software now.
by sticking with that message without refreshing it for new ears and eyes, the FSF did not do itself favours. i am not saying tha the FSF should change its position, but a refresh on the approach to communicate it would be great.
I am one of those who believe Red Hat rose to their current level of success exactly because they did not compromise on freedom. Then again I do want the Vivaldi, and I understand that we need to live with closed drivers on some devices until we can gain some traction.
and yes, i believe energy was wasted and bridges were, if not burned, at least left to rot with the whole "GNU/Linux" and Free vs open source conflicts. the energy poured into these things, which resulted in no measurable benefit, could have gone into pushing the movement further forward. instead, it was a distracting dialog.
"I am one of those who believe Red Hat rose to their current level of success exactly because they did not compromise on freedom"
please read the first entry in this series ("founding philosophers") where i echo this statement. i agree that Red Hat's success is directly linked to how they've stuck to those principles, and i have tremendous respect for that. i find it inspiring, in fact.
"I understand that we need to live with closed drivers on some devices until we can gain some traction."
as long as we have an eye to finding ways to move beyond proprietary drivers, i agree. it's a reality, but one we can change by engaging.
"Still, I hope FSF and RMS can continue to be a beacon of moral standards, I believe we need it."
i agree 100%.
"Distancing ourselves from the people you name here is not doing anybody any good."
i'm really not trying to distance myself from the FSF or RMS. sometimes critique is needed, and in this case as a member of the Free software community, i see it as self-critique.
upcoming entries in this series will (hopefully :) lay some groundwork for ways forward, in particular how we might bring the ethical philosophy back closer to the center alongside the pragmatism.
Thanks for the clarifications, it makes me look forward to the coming blog entries :)
Welcome to the difficulties of most movements. Change a few words and you could be talking about environmentalism or feminism, with the same conflicts between pragmatists, incrementalists, and fundamental philosophers.
Treat people with respect, acknowledge their motivations even if you don't agree with them, and periodically step back to look at the bigger picture which will remind you of the immense amount of common ground within the movement compared to minor squabbles.
I kinda wanna see where this is going after reading Bryan Lunduke's "Jelly Sprinkles" blog post.
Thank you for this inspiring post and the kudos to the FSFE.
However I'd like to note that so-called pragmatism can turn rogue and against us. To pick up the naming controversy example, we now have a versatile and very widespread Free Software kernel, Linux, that runs on an exuberant number of devices including televisions, routers, cell phones as well as more classic computers from mainframes to netbooks and the like. Because of the resulting, increasing ambiguity, people started to refer to distributions of Free Software running GNU userland, Linux and different desktops as "Desktop Linux". At the same time however, the importance of classic desktops and personal computers is decreasing, and there are efforts to run GNU userland and other projects on top of other kernels such as OpenSolaris. At the same time, so-called "pragmatism" has gone as far that even a 0% Linux, 50% GNU software project such as Cygwin has started to remove all references to GNU but instead states (it is) "a collection of tools which provide a Linux look and feel environment for Windows."
Now, with so much pragmatism around, where does it leave people which such a vague impression about the phantom called "Linux" today? How does one continue to convey an actual message of software freedom, as Linux doesn't mean anything about freedom (see TVs)? How do we protect ourselves against the appropriation through entities that see Free Software as a hazard, since they can easily shrug off criticism by referring to "Linux"-friendliness or use of "Linux"?
What's the point of Free Software being installed on your device without your mind having become free? This is the problem we need to solve, and pragmatism alone hasn't brought us anywhere.
The quality problems which stem from free software complexity have to be ironed out. Freedom without annoyance means pragmatism. Unlike 10 years ago I cannot recommend any government office to switch to a free desktop environment. It is a pity that the XPDE desktop failed due to its odd choice of programming language. Unless there is a safety net of 100% the same people won't want to switch.
Thanks for the continuation of the series. I agree that too much shift to the "pragmatism" can forgo core ethical values for the sake of selfish benefit. One should draw a line somewhere.
One such example is Android. If you look at its history, it started as a proprietary project (and because of that had several selfish design decisions, which didn't take any consideration about existing Linux communities, for instance video Linux drivers one, Xorg and etc.). Google acquired Android for pragmatic reasons of not writing things from scratch, opened it (or semi opened to be clear), and pushed it to success. The picture we have today - Android is largely successful in terms of wide usage. On the other hand it's totally isolated, not benefiting global Linux community. You are well aware about it, since you deal with Vivaldi. It's a pain to get Xorg / Wayland video drivers from hardware vendors, who are preoccupied with Android and it's totally incompatible video stack. (I'm not even talking about having open video drivers, that's an ideal case). So, for the sake of pragmatism, Android benefited itself (and it worked), but it hindered conventional Linux adoption on mobile, because of creating unnecessary competition for the drivers, and hardware manufactures distraction. So such things as Vivaldi come now with much pain and effort, while it could be way easier, if Android would be designed from the start with community in mind (like Wayland did, in order to avoid splitting the drivers efforts from Xorg community). So IMO Android is a bad example of pragmatism, which goes against core values of open source and free software.
Bassboy: You wrote about G+:
1. There are a lot of Open Source and General software enthusiasts on there.
2. For some reason, I have seen that posts (or even just links to blog posts), generate a lot of discussion there.
3. It's easier to follow people on G+ than on rss readers.
I'd say it's a good example in the context of this article. G+ (as well as Facebook and similar proprietary social networks) is not fitting at all with open source and free software values :)
So, reasons not to use G+ (and surely it applies to Facebook as well):
1. It's proprietary, build on closed source technologies, you can't just fork it and build your own network on its base.
2. It has centralized design and is controlled by single vendor.
3. As result of the above, it's not privacy oriented (just the opposite is true), and the owning vendor exploits users' content for the sake of profit.
Now, if you care about the values of open source and free software, you would choose something like Diaspora* which is:
1. Built on open source technologies, and its code is free to view, to fork and etc. as any open source project.
2. Actual network is decentralized, not controlled by one vendor, anyone can open a diaspora server (pod) if they want to, and connect to the global federated D* social network. User is in control.
3. As result of the above it's privacy oriented, and users' content is not exploited for someones profit.
I dont want any of the blogposts to move to G+. Right now, blogposts are readable by anyone and on the "open web". G+ posts are not public, require a G+ account and stay in Google's closed database. Not an ideal medium for discussions about an open project.
Thanks for the article. Did not know about some history referred to here (such as Eric Raymond declaring KDE dead). That was quite surprising to read about.
I agree people should focus more on success of ones project rather than failure of others. Relatedly, I think even corporations also play a part in the ecosystems today. More players the merrier. If someone chooses Windows or OSX or iOS because it works for them, I am fine with that as long as companies dont do illegal things.
KDE works for me, so I choose KDE. I do try to spread the word on why I choose KDE, but ultimately it is everyone's individual choice to decide what they want to use.
Post a Comment