5 ms·

Miguel de Icaza: The Right Spirit

39 points by nnutter 17y ago

nnutter 17y ago
Subtley different than Torvalds (pragmatism) vs. Stallman (idealism) in that I think the main point is about how people react to others' with different opinions. Should I hate a friend because he disagrees with my ideals? Certainly not. Yet people act as though anyone with a differing opinion is their enemy.
- failquicker 17y ago
  I couldn't agree more. "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. " - Thomas Jefferson Unfortunately, the Us vs. THEM mentality seems to be propagating more and more these days. "Divide and Conquer" isn't just a military strategy. It's a highly successful way for keeping a population from moving forward in many ways. I live in the DC metro area and have seen a "Democrats need not apply" sign up in a store front. I think it was meant to be humorous, but it's still fairly screwed up. "Disliking or hating something conditions you to (1) ignore virtues in the disliked, (2) dislike people, products, and actions associated with the disliked, and (3) distort other facts to facilitate hatred. Startups should focus on their customers, not their competition—whom they may dislike." -This is #3 on VentureHacks cheat sheet of point from "The Psychology of Entrepreneurial Misjudgment"
  - hga 17y ago
    Unless Jefferson wrote that after the denouncement of the French Revolution and the appreciation of how it changed the game, I can't consider it to be useful advice today. E.g. to update a bit (to Marxism or Marxist/Leninism), Jefferson's potential and actual friends didn't include ones who considered him to be a class enemy with all that that implies. Things like a sign that says "Democrats need not apply" are merely an indication of the continuation of this eliminationist civil war in Western society (well, more likely who it has been heating up in the last year and a quarter; I never saw such in the 1991-2004 period when I lived there). Anyway, I "dislike" people who want to put me and mine into concentration camps, plus or minus (i.e. less and more severe examples of the same thing). There are no virtues in such people that can cause me to "like" them.
kprobst 17y ago
This seems to be directed at the gaggle of ideological extremists that have hounded and insulted de Icaza for years because he dared suggest that Microsoft had a pretty good idea with .NET and C#. Sadly though, it's precisely those people who will pay the least attention to this.
- hga 17y ago
  Perhaps, but it doesn't address my two big issues: 1) I fully accept that .NET/C#/most especially the CLR are great ideas. Which I care not a whit about because Microsoft's ownership of them makes them things I cannot trust. For me the technical line of demarcation was in fact the orphaning of VB6, see Joel for more on this. Legally, at about the same time, see #2: 2) When he says "For open source to win, we do not need Microsoft, Apple or proprietary software to lose." he's leaving open a terrible logical hole, since it is not at all clear that the reverse is true. Maybe Microsoft can't win without open source losing. Microsoft's war to the knife against Linux, by proxy (e.g. SCO) and otherwise, argues that it doesn't see the world in the way de Icaza implies.
  - faragon 17y ago
    Great, yes, but not original ideas (Java/JVM).
    - hga 17y ago
      And your point is? Java/the JVM wasn't even Gosling's first bytecode system (that was as far as I know his MockLisp for his 32 bit Unix EMACS). Come to think of it, a Common Language Runtime wasn't a particularly common idea at the time. There have to have been some ... there were some common bytecode engines, but not common libraries as I recall ... so maybe it's somewhat more original than you and I automatically assume.
  - mkramlich 17y ago
    My own take on C#/.NET, and I bet a lot of others had this take as well, came down to 2 elements: 1. when it appeared, it looked a lot like somebody within Microsoft said to some other guys, "Hey, go make us a Java. Like Java, but our baby." And they basically approached it by cloning it and then making several superficial tweaks and changes -- JUST enough, especially at a superficial level, so they could say with a straight face to people who were none to observant that this indeed was the product of internal R&D -- true innovation -- rather than being what it actually was. In short, it looked awfully like a student who turned in a paper which was a pretty blatant copy of another student's paper, except with some superficial textual changes made to make it look different and original. I know that both languages have drifted and evolved since C#'s debut, but I remember looking at programs written in the current dialects of Java and C# at C#'s debut and it was hilarious just how much it looked like the C# version was just a functional/semantic clone of Java, only with arbitrary syntax differences (keywords, case, etc.) Life is complex and they've both evolved since then, but there's no doubt in mind that C# started life with a "clone Java, change it's name/keywords" design strategy. 2. Microsoft's whole business model appears, to me anyway, and to other folks, as being basically about just copying what other folks are doing, putting their logo on it, offering it up for sale, and then once people are using it, to design features and systems in such a way as to create lock-in. Lure them in, then close the door. Or least, slowly start closing that door, so slowly and with enough distraction that the unwitting victim is not smart enough or quick enough to see it.
faragon 17y ago
The right spirit... for him. I do not share his view. I agree that it is not a "zero-sum game", however, Microsoft identifies Open Source as the "enemy" (add your favourite Ballmer's quote here). I respect Miguel's opinion, but I will not follow his C#/Mono "vision", as I prefer vanilla C, or in case of needing higher abstraction, use Lisp, Perl, Python, or Bash.
- zppx 17y ago
  Microsoft, Ballmer in fact, also sees iPods, iPhones, Google, Amazon AWS, IBM, Nintendo and Sony as enemies, and not only open source. If there are some people in the community that wants to see Linux as a platform that fits everything (mobile, server, embedded appliances, etc) what is wrong if a MS executive dreams of the same happening with his company's products? And by the way, bash sucks... zsh forever. Just kidding in this line.
- nailer 17y ago
  Yes, but so many people are focused on being a better MS (say, in the desktop software space) they're forgetting the larger game (that desktop software is shrinking itself, meanwhile lacking an installable current-release version its default web browser).
- jf 17y ago
  I have yet to find someone at Microsoft that views Open Source as "the enemy".
  - bootload 17y ago
    "... I have yet to find someone at Microsoft that views Open Source as 'the enemy'. ..." Maybe all the players have left MS now? But I remember Bill didn't like open source ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists James Allchin wasn't that keen ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Allchin#Controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Allchin#Controversies neither was Paul Maritz ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Maritz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Maritz and Vinod Valloppillil wrote the book ~ http://www.vinod.com/blog/NavLinks/FAQ.html http://www.vinod.com/blog/NavLinks/FAQ.html You can get a better view of these MS players reading through the Halloween documents at http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ None of that matters much as it once did. MS is spent as a force, at least in the eyes of developers. There are bigger problems. [0] [0] Eben Moglen, "Interview: Eben Moglen - Freedom vs. The Cloud Log" http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Interview-Eben-Moglen-Freedom-vs-the-Cloud-Log-955421.html http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Interview-Eben-Moglen-...
lucyfor 17y ago
Seems like he's trying to rationalize the position that he has had for the last 10+ years. One can imagine that those M$ contracts are brutal, I hope the cash was worth it for his sake.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  God, what an ignorant statement. This is the kind of reasoning I would expect on Reddit but not Hacker News. Agree or disagree, but please base your argument on the article and not just some ad hominem attack on the person. Note: This also applies to anyone who uses the term "M$".
  - lucyfor 17y ago
    When someone fronts their own PRIVATE struggles(by attempting to rationalize the way that they earn a living) as PUBLIC philosophy regarding open-source then counter observations will be made. Nothing unusual really. Once you graduate from your insulated world in academia and spend some time in industry you will realize just how "ignorant" the previous comment is. Profit determines many decisions. The quicker you learn this the better. Or just stay in Academia forever. Welcome to the desert of the real ...
    - shadowfox 17y ago
      You are quite in to ad hominem, aren't you?
    - tbrownaw 17y ago
      On the off chance that you're serious and not just intentionally trolling... I think you forget that he is employed by Novell, rather than Microsoft. This article is consistent with statements I've seen in the past, and past actions. It doesn't look like a philosophy made up after the fact to rationalize actions, it looks like an existing philosophy that drove those actions. Do you have any actual, um, evidence that this is a rationalization rather than an explanation of a long-standing viewpoint? Note that the quote comes from Steve Jobs, was he also trying to rationalize how he made a living? I feel about the same way as is expressed in the article despite it having no financial impact on me and not being relevant to any projects I have (ie, there's nothing for me to rationalize about).
papachito 17y ago
There's a difference between accepting MS software being ported to Mac or Linux such as Office or... I think that's it and what he wants. But Miguel wants big parts of the linux desktop to be built on .Net and C# some parts of which are patented. Why take that risk when we already have gtk/C etc and Qt? Even Steve Jobs wouldn't drop Cocoa and build the whole OSX on top of C#, and he'd be right not to do so.
biehl 17y ago
<i>For open source to win, we do not need Microsoft, Apple or proprietary software to lose.</i> Hrm. Actually we need Microsoft to lose. A lot of things. We need them to lose the embrace, extend, extinguish attitude. We need them to lose the criminal abuse of monopoly tendencies. And we need them to lose the creepy unspecified claims of Linux infringing their software patents. Alternatively if we dont actually believe Microsoft, the coorporation, will change behavior - then we need them to lose the dominant position that they abuse to hurt competitors and Free Software.

39 points by nnutter 17y ago

Subtley different than Torvalds (pragmatism) vs. Stallman (idealism) in that I think the main point is about how people react to others' with different opinions. Should I hate a friend because he disagrees with my ideals? Certainly not. Yet people act as though anyone with a differing opinion is their enemy.

failquicker 17y ago
I couldn't agree more. "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. " - Thomas Jefferson Unfortunately, the Us vs. THEM mentality seems to be propagating more and more these days. "Divide and Conquer" isn't just a military strategy. It's a highly successful way for keeping a population from moving forward in many ways. I live in the DC metro area and have seen a "Democrats need not apply" sign up in a store front. I think it was meant to be humorous, but it's still fairly screwed up. "Disliking or hating something conditions you to (1) ignore virtues in the disliked, (2) dislike people, products, and actions associated with the disliked, and (3) distort other facts to facilitate hatred. Startups should focus on their customers, not their competition—whom they may dislike." -This is #3 on VentureHacks cheat sheet of point from "The Psychology of Entrepreneurial Misjudgment"
- hga 17y ago
  Unless Jefferson wrote that after the denouncement of the French Revolution and the appreciation of how it changed the game, I can't consider it to be useful advice today. E.g. to update a bit (to Marxism or Marxist/Leninism), Jefferson's potential and actual friends didn't include ones who considered him to be a class enemy with all that that implies. Things like a sign that says "Democrats need not apply" are merely an indication of the continuation of this eliminationist civil war in Western society (well, more likely who it has been heating up in the last year and a quarter; I never saw such in the 1991-2004 period when I lived there). Anyway, I "dislike" people who want to put me and mine into concentration camps, plus or minus (i.e. less and more severe examples of the same thing). There are no virtues in such people that can cause me to "like" them.

kprobst 17y ago

This seems to be directed at the gaggle of ideological extremists that have hounded and insulted de Icaza for years because he dared suggest that Microsoft had a pretty good idea with .NET and C#. Sadly though, it's precisely those people who will pay the least attention to this.

hga 17y ago
Perhaps, but it doesn't address my two big issues: 1) I fully accept that .NET/C#/most especially the CLR are great ideas. Which I care not a whit about because Microsoft's ownership of them makes them things I cannot trust. For me the technical line of demarcation was in fact the orphaning of VB6, see Joel for more on this. Legally, at about the same time, see #2: 2) When he says "For open source to win, we do not need Microsoft, Apple or proprietary software to lose." he's leaving open a terrible logical hole, since it is not at all clear that the reverse is true. Maybe Microsoft can't win without open source losing. Microsoft's war to the knife against Linux, by proxy (e.g. SCO) and otherwise, argues that it doesn't see the world in the way de Icaza implies.
- faragon 17y ago
  Great, yes, but not original ideas (Java/JVM).
  - hga 17y ago
    And your point is? Java/the JVM wasn't even Gosling's first bytecode system (that was as far as I know his MockLisp for his 32 bit Unix EMACS). Come to think of it, a Common Language Runtime wasn't a particularly common idea at the time. There have to have been some ... there were some common bytecode engines, but not common libraries as I recall ... so maybe it's somewhat more original than you and I automatically assume.
- mkramlich 17y ago
  My own take on C#/.NET, and I bet a lot of others had this take as well, came down to 2 elements: 1. when it appeared, it looked a lot like somebody within Microsoft said to some other guys, "Hey, go make us a Java. Like Java, but our baby." And they basically approached it by cloning it and then making several superficial tweaks and changes -- JUST enough, especially at a superficial level, so they could say with a straight face to people who were none to observant that this indeed was the product of internal R&D -- true innovation -- rather than being what it actually was. In short, it looked awfully like a student who turned in a paper which was a pretty blatant copy of another student's paper, except with some superficial textual changes made to make it look different and original. I know that both languages have drifted and evolved since C#'s debut, but I remember looking at programs written in the current dialects of Java and C# at C#'s debut and it was hilarious just how much it looked like the C# version was just a functional/semantic clone of Java, only with arbitrary syntax differences (keywords, case, etc.) Life is complex and they've both evolved since then, but there's no doubt in mind that C# started life with a "clone Java, change it's name/keywords" design strategy. 2. Microsoft's whole business model appears, to me anyway, and to other folks, as being basically about just copying what other folks are doing, putting their logo on it, offering it up for sale, and then once people are using it, to design features and systems in such a way as to create lock-in. Lure them in, then close the door. Or least, slowly start closing that door, so slowly and with enough distraction that the unwitting victim is not smart enough or quick enough to see it.

faragon 17y ago

The right spirit... for him. I do not share his view. I agree that it is not a "zero-sum game", however, Microsoft identifies Open Source as the "enemy" (add your favourite Ballmer's quote here). I respect Miguel's opinion, but I will not follow his C#/Mono "vision", as I prefer vanilla C, or in case of needing higher abstraction, use Lisp, Perl, Python, or Bash.

zppx 17y ago
Microsoft, Ballmer in fact, also sees iPods, iPhones, Google, Amazon AWS, IBM, Nintendo and Sony as enemies, and not only open source. If there are some people in the community that wants to see Linux as a platform that fits everything (mobile, server, embedded appliances, etc) what is wrong if a MS executive dreams of the same happening with his company's products? And by the way, bash sucks... zsh forever. Just kidding in this line.
nailer 17y ago
Yes, but so many people are focused on being a better MS (say, in the desktop software space) they're forgetting the larger game (that desktop software is shrinking itself, meanwhile lacking an installable current-release version its default web browser).
jf 17y ago
I have yet to find someone at Microsoft that views Open Source as "the enemy".
- bootload 17y ago
  "... I have yet to find someone at Microsoft that views Open Source as 'the enemy'. ..." Maybe all the players have left MS now? But I remember Bill didn't like open source ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists James Allchin wasn't that keen ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Allchin#Controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Allchin#Controversies neither was Paul Maritz ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Maritz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Maritz and Vinod Valloppillil wrote the book ~ http://www.vinod.com/blog/NavLinks/FAQ.html http://www.vinod.com/blog/NavLinks/FAQ.html You can get a better view of these MS players reading through the Halloween documents at http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ None of that matters much as it once did. MS is spent as a force, at least in the eyes of developers. There are bigger problems. [0] [0] Eben Moglen, "Interview: Eben Moglen - Freedom vs. The Cloud Log" http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Interview-Eben-Moglen-Freedom-vs-the-Cloud-Log-955421.html http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Interview-Eben-Moglen-...

lucyfor 17y ago

Seems like he's trying to rationalize the position that he has had for the last 10+ years. One can imagine that those M$ contracts are brutal, I hope the cash was worth it for his sake.

Locke1689 17y ago
God, what an ignorant statement. This is the kind of reasoning I would expect on Reddit but not Hacker News. Agree or disagree, but please base your argument on the article and not just some ad hominem attack on the person. Note: This also applies to anyone who uses the term "M$".
- lucyfor 17y ago
  When someone fronts their own PRIVATE struggles(by attempting to rationalize the way that they earn a living) as PUBLIC philosophy regarding open-source then counter observations will be made. Nothing unusual really. Once you graduate from your insulated world in academia and spend some time in industry you will realize just how "ignorant" the previous comment is. Profit determines many decisions. The quicker you learn this the better. Or just stay in Academia forever. Welcome to the desert of the real ...
  - shadowfox 17y ago
    You are quite in to ad hominem, aren't you?
  - tbrownaw 17y ago
    On the off chance that you're serious and not just intentionally trolling... I think you forget that he is employed by Novell, rather than Microsoft. This article is consistent with statements I've seen in the past, and past actions. It doesn't look like a philosophy made up after the fact to rationalize actions, it looks like an existing philosophy that drove those actions. Do you have any actual, um, evidence that this is a rationalization rather than an explanation of a long-standing viewpoint? Note that the quote comes from Steve Jobs, was he also trying to rationalize how he made a living? I feel about the same way as is expressed in the article despite it having no financial impact on me and not being relevant to any projects I have (ie, there's nothing for me to rationalize about).

papachito 17y ago

There's a difference between accepting MS software being ported to Mac or Linux such as Office or... I think that's it and what he wants. But Miguel wants big parts of the linux desktop to be built on .Net and C# some parts of which are patented. Why take that risk when we already have gtk/C etc and Qt? Even Steve Jobs wouldn't drop Cocoa and build the whole OSX on top of C#, and he'd be right not to do so.

biehl 17y ago

<i>For open source to win, we do not need Microsoft, Apple or proprietary software to lose.</i> Hrm. Actually we need Microsoft to lose. A lot of things. We need them to lose the embrace, extend, extinguish attitude. We need them to lose the criminal abuse of monopoly tendencies. And we need them to lose the creepy unspecified claims of Linux infringing their software patents. Alternatively if we dont actually believe Microsoft, the coorporation, will change behavior - then we need them to lose the dominant position that they abuse to hurt competitors and Free Software.