4 ms·

> this has been shown to be something of a myth No, it hasn't. The only thing that's _clear_ is that, despite a handful of likeminded folks perennially floati

by cxr 5y ago

> this has been shown to be something of a myth No, it hasn't. The only thing that's _clear_ is that, despite a handful of likeminded folks perennially floating this claim here and being challenged on it, evidence overwhelmingly shows that the term "open source" was minted in 1998 exactly the way history says it was, and that some people on the wrong side of hubris and/or the Mandela effect refuse to accept it. It's like the software world's very own strain of truther conspiracy. What _has_ been shown is that there exists a document predating 1998 in which the words "open" and "source" are incidentally adjacent—in a completely different grammatical context. It is telling, now just as it was the last time, that this slippery document (which has been perniciously retitled, no less) is The One that is always held up as proof—instead of a representative sample of the, you know, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of examples showing "open source" in casual use that would be expected to exist if the claim actually held any water. > Linus's [and the BSDs'] disagreement with RMS's ideology is well known, so if "open source" were really already a thing before 1998, then we should expect that the number of times "open source" appears among his cohort prior to 1998 would be [...] as common as it is today. For it not to show up before that point and then to explode in use post-mozilla.org[...]

chrisseaton 5y ago
> incidentally adjacent I don't think that's an honest description of what's in that email. It says: > Caldera believes an open source code model benefits the industry in many ways So they're already using the phrase 'open source' as a compound adjective. > The One that is always held up as proof Well it's not just one email. For example here's another, from 1993: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32/c/WoBvPB0U9Co/m/wXfpq5nEJTYJ https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.wi... It uses the term with the same meaning: > Open Source is best for everyone in the long run.
- marwis 5y ago
  To me it reads more like (open (source code)) which feels very distinct from ((open source) code).
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Open Source is best for everyone in the long run. It's literally written as a proper noun!
    - cxr 5y ago
      Do you want to approach this systematically, or do you want to string together a series of continually evasive comments? The sentence you've just quoted comes from your second link, not your first, which is what marwis was addressing, which itself means your "reply" here can in no way be construed as actually responding to his or her point. Either source is fair play, of course, but it would be a waste of time for anyone to engage, as an attempt to prosecute any of your claims, without some kind of indicator that you're not just going to abandon the pretext for the current line of inquiry at any given moment and try to hop to another branch. Every time I run into someone trying this trick, it reminds me of a Scott Aaronson post about people who are either incapable or unwilling to subject their "side" of an issue to logical deduction: > What fascinated me was that, with every single issue we discussed, we went around in a similar circle — and Kurt didn’t seem to see any problem with this, just so long as the number of 2SAT clauses that he had to resolve to get a contradiction was large enough. [...] Inspired by conversations with Kurt and others, I hereby wish to propose a different theory of fundamentalist psychology. My theory is this: fundamentalists use a system of logical inference wherein you only have to apply the inference rules two or three times before you stop. (The exact number of inferences can vary, depending on how much you like the conclusion.) <https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=232 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=232>
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        I'm sorry but I don't get what you mean? People claim the OSI coined 'open source'. I provided a counter example that shows they didn't. That's not enough, and you claimed the example was the only one in existence, so I provided a second, which must have been a surprise to you! Both use 'open source' in a similar context. One even capitalises it as a proper noun and presents it as a movement people should get behind. What is your argument at this point? Both authors of those emails are time travellers or something? Do you think someone is fabricating these emails? Why would they do that and how would they get them onto these third-party websites?

by cxr 5y ago

chrisseaton 5y ago

> incidentally adjacent I don't think that's an honest description of what's in that email. It says: > Caldera believes an open source code model benefits the industry in many ways So they're already using the phrase 'open source' as a compound adjective. > The One that is always held up as proof Well it's not just one email. For example here's another, from 1993: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32/c/WoBvPB0U9Co/m/wXfpq5nEJTYJ https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.wi... It uses the term with the same meaning: > Open Source is best for everyone in the long run.

marwis 5y ago
To me it reads more like (open (source code)) which feels very distinct from ((open source) code).
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > Open Source is best for everyone in the long run. It's literally written as a proper noun!
  - cxr 5y ago
    Do you want to approach this systematically, or do you want to string together a series of continually evasive comments? The sentence you've just quoted comes from your second link, not your first, which is what marwis was addressing, which itself means your "reply" here can in no way be construed as actually responding to his or her point. Either source is fair play, of course, but it would be a waste of time for anyone to engage, as an attempt to prosecute any of your claims, without some kind of indicator that you're not just going to abandon the pretext for the current line of inquiry at any given moment and try to hop to another branch. Every time I run into someone trying this trick, it reminds me of a Scott Aaronson post about people who are either incapable or unwilling to subject their "side" of an issue to logical deduction: > What fascinated me was that, with every single issue we discussed, we went around in a similar circle — and Kurt didn’t seem to see any problem with this, just so long as the number of 2SAT clauses that he had to resolve to get a contradiction was large enough. [...] Inspired by conversations with Kurt and others, I hereby wish to propose a different theory of fundamentalist psychology. My theory is this: fundamentalists use a system of logical inference wherein you only have to apply the inference rules two or three times before you stop. (The exact number of inferences can vary, depending on how much you like the conclusion.) <https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=232 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=232>
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      I'm sorry but I don't get what you mean? People claim the OSI coined 'open source'. I provided a counter example that shows they didn't. That's not enough, and you claimed the example was the only one in existence, so I provided a second, which must have been a surprise to you! Both use 'open source' in a similar context. One even capitalises it as a proper noun and presents it as a movement people should get behind. What is your argument at this point? Both authors of those emails are time travellers or something? Do you think someone is fabricating these emails? Why would they do that and how would they get them onto these third-party websites?