MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-05-21 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Balug-talk] [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Its a sorry day for The Linux
|
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 00:53, Matt Thrailkill wrote:
> So the gist of Mr. Petreley's argument is:
> convenience/pragmatism > *?
>
> Thats almost good, except pragmatic means different things to different
> people. Being concerned about patent or licensing problems with Java or
> other pieces of software seems worthwhile if you are someone like
> Redhat.
>
> For most of the big debates there doesn't seem to be a clear distinction
> of which program is inferior, even though he makes it sound that way.
>
> It seems to me like you have two philosophies, the open source
> philosophy and the free software philosophy. One is heavy on
> pragmatism, one is heavy on ideology. Most people are in the middle.
> Personally, it seems to me that a piece of software being vibrant and
> free/open goes hand in hand with it being "good". Petrely is arguing
> for a purely pragmatic approach, which seems a little short-sighted.
>
> >From other things I've read, he strikes me as Linux's own John Dvorak.
>
> On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 09:51 -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 05:49:39PM -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > /etc/rant - The Spirit of Open Source
> > By Nicholas Petreley
> > Created 2006-02-23 02:00
> >
> >
> > How dare Linus Torvalds recommend that people use what's best?
> > Dang. I had intended to rant about wikis this month, but Dave Taylor
> > covered the topic thoroughly and did a much better job than I would
> > have. See his article "Why I Don't [strike]Like[/strike] [edit: Get]
> > Wikis" in this issue.
> >
> > There's plenty of other things to rant about, however. There's the
> > schizophrenic, religious and hypocritical zealotry of free/open-source
> > advocates that often gets more ink than the sane attitudes that are more
> > prevalent in the development community itself.
> >
> > Take the irrational fear of Java and its gatekeeper, Sun, as an example.
> > Do you realize there are people who still insist that the only
> > acceptable version of Java is a clean-room open-source implementation
> > that (they presume) cannot be controlled by Sun? Did you also know that,
> > according to Evans data, the vast majority of Linux developers uses
> > Java-based Eclipse as their favorite integrated development environment
> > (IDE)?
> >
> > I'm using the Java-based Jedit to write this column. I use Jedit because
> > I think it is the best editor on the planet. Ask me if I'm afraid that
> > Sun will send the Java police after me to collect a license fee. No, ask
> > me what I would do if Sun did that? I'd gladly pay up. Why? I told you.
> > I think Jedit is the best editor on the planet and I want to use it.
> >
> > Do you know what Linux developers named as their second favorite IDE?
> > KDevelop. That's right, the KDE-based IDE that depends upon the evil Qt.
> > Sure you can use the GPL version of Qt, which requires you to share your
> > code. But Qt is evil because you have to pay license fees to its
> > creator, Trolltech, if (and only if) you want to sell a closed-source
> > proprietary application based on Qt.
> >
> > GTK, on the other hand, is good, because you can sell closed-source
> > proprietary applications based on GTK without having to give anything
> > back to the people whose work you exploited in order to make your money.
> > Don't take my word for it. When I talked to Ximian's Miguel de Icaza, he
> > named the LGPL license as the reason why people should choose GTK and
> > GNOME over Qt and KDE. And it is the LGPL that allows people to exploit
> > the work of the developers of GTK and GNOME without having to compensate
> > them with money or source code.
> >
> > In view of this, it is beyond me how GTK and GNOME remain the poster
> > children of open source for so many open-source advocates.
> >
> > What is the spirit of open source? It is the GNU General Public License.
> > The idea is that if you publish software that integrates someone else's
> > publicly available work (work licensed under the GPL), you are required
> > to make your additional work available to the public as well.
> >
> > The Linux kernel is based on the GPL. NVIDIA violates the GPL because it
> > keeps some of its Linux kernel driver code secret. The end result is
> > that you will "taint" the kernel if you use NVIDIA's closed-source
> > kernel module. Shame on NVIDIA. It isn't sharing like it's supposed to.
> >
> > Fine. I agree with that. But how can you go from there to saying GTK is
> > good because it allows--no, invites--you to do what NVIDIA does? The
> > whole point of the LGPL is to allow you to add something to GTK without
> > having to compensate the GTK developers with either money or source
> > code.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. Personally, I couldn't care less what motivates
> > people to use Qt, GTK, Java, Python or the practically useless GCJ (GNU
> > Java compiler). What irks me is when someone advocates inferior
> > solutions purely in the name of open source, especially when those
> > so-called open-source solutions so clearly violate the spirit of open
> > source.
> >
> > If you want a good example of the right attitude, look no further than
> > Linus Torvalds, Linux creator. You don't have to agree with his methods
> > or his decisions, but I don't see how anyone can impugn his motives.
> > Here is a man who cares about what's right and what has practical value.
> >
> > So what are we to make of the fact that Linus Torvalds criticized GNOME
> > and recommended KDE? Here we have the creator of the Linux kernel
> > criticizing what many see as the poster child of open source and
> > recommending the evil Qt-based KDE. Why would our open-source hero say
> > such a thing? Because in his opinion (an opinion I share), the GNOME
> > design is so bad it should be considered a disease.
> >
> > You don't have to agree with him, but it's plain that his recommendation
> > is based on his opinion of what works best. There's no sign of misguided
> > zealotry or religion in that recommendation. Use what's best. What a
> > concept. Linux developers seem to get it. It's about time the
> > open-source zealots got it too.
> >
> >
> > Nicholas Petreley is Editor in Chief of Linux Journal and a former
> > programmer, teacher, analyst and consultant who has been working with
> > and writing about Linux for more than ten years.
> >
> >
> >
> > Links
> > source URL: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8825
> >
|
|
