16 ms·

Miguel de Icaza responds to latest RMS article

54 points by michael_h 17y ago

yan 17y ago
The more of Stallman's writing you read, the more you realize how insane that man is.
- barrkel 17y ago
  http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossible.mp3 http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossi... (FWIW, I respect rms's purity of ideology, and I respect how it broadens the debate, but I don't think his extreme represents a desired end goal.)
  - bbgm 17y ago
    And I have the opposite opinion. Ideology = a lack of flexibility and a very closed mind, neither of which is a constructive state and achieves little in the long run.
    - barrkel 17y ago
      Most people don't have the courage of conviction. To stake out a position with a mental framework that supports it, and to live by what that position implies, is difficult. I don't think one can say that RMS didn't achieve much. He supplied the seed, directly or indirectly, to many free and open software accomplishments. I don't think that would have happened if he'd been wishy-washy, flexible, easy-going guy. He'd certainly have been easier to like, but probably not as effective. And to reiterate, I don't subscribe to rms's opinion, or think he's right on everything, or anything in particular without further investigation. But I do think lack of compromise is harder than it looks.
  - yan 17y ago
    What's there to respect about purity of ideology? Being pure and ignorant of other opinions is the easy way out. Learning and understanding alternate points of view and working with those people is what's worth respect, imho.
    - stcredzero 17y ago
      Being pure and ignorant of other opinions is the easy way out. There is nothing in ideological purity that demands ignorance of other opinions. And just because you're cognizant of someone's opinion, doesn't mean you have to agree. RMS can say what he wants, and I'm sure he's not ignorant of other's opinions. If you don't like what he says, don't do what he says. If you don't like his philosophy, maybe you shouldn't use GNU software? He doesn't force you to use any software. (Which is more than can be said for lots of corporations.)
      - yan 17y ago
        That's exactly opposite of what I think is actually going on. I don't want to get into a GPL vs BSD argument, but he does say people should not use commercial software, thus limiting their options to often less useful free software equivalents. And corporations do give you choice in usage as you can always opt to not buy software from them. A well-regulated commercial market is all about choice.
        gloob 17y ago
        he does say people should not use commercial software Commercial != non-free. Stallman doesn't, to my knowledge, have an issue with the former. He rather dislikes the latter.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      In striking martial arts, they teach you to aim your strikes at a point beyond the real point where your strike will end.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nelson69 17y ago
    I respect the hell out of RMS and his accomplishments. On this and some other issues I do think there is a blurriness to his ideology. Technologies don't have an intrinsic goodness or evilness to them, even DRM, it's just technology the good and the evil come from how it is used. So I look at something like Mono, it's a remarkable piece of technology. It's a fairly lightweight managed VM, just like Java but completely and 100% opensource, built on opensource for opensource. It works too and it works pretty well at what it does. There is no "good" or "evil" component to it. Now Microsoft potentially have patents that cover parts of it that they could threaten to use, that's a risk but that risk will also expire at some point. The Linux kernel also has patents that potentially cover parts of it, including patents the Microsoft owns but that's not being treated as a taboo... RMS waters his own statement down by blurring that line between technologies and how the technologies are used. Instead of bullying Miguel, he should bully MS to further clarify their stance and continue to open their position on the technologies used by Mono. he should be fighting to free that stuff rather than bash one of the biggest contributors to his movement.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  RMS isn't insane. It's just that he's willing to extrapolate his ideas into seemingly insane territory. He is right in that corporations are making scary inroads into our rights online and with regards to privacy. But we may not agree in terms of what to do about it. I think FOSS can "embrace and extend" just as well as Microsoft!
  - youngian 17y ago
    I've always felt that RMS is basically an extremist (every movement has them). But I think that's actually a good thing. Yeah, he says some crazy things, but his ideas are always worth listening to. It's for the best that most of us don't take such a hard line, but I think it's a good thing to have someone like RMS constantly calling us out when we stray too far from the vision. The end goal should still be a world unencumbered by closed software. We don't want to get so busy implementing .NET that we forget about that.
- igorgue 17y ago
  and the more we forget how much RMS did. People lose respect to him, I even heard people saying: "and what did he write? Emacs? nobody use that sh*t", the fact is, a lot of todays innovation is built on top of Stallman's work.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    That's a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how much he did, if he says or does stuff today that doesn't hold water he should be called on it. If all the software that deIcaza and Stallman helped produce would be removed from your average Ubuntu box it would probably not get into booting, let alone do something useful. That doesn't give either of them the right to pretend to speak for everybody or to try to carve up the world of software in to camps.
  - axod 17y ago
    I'd say that it's very likely that if he hadn't done it, others would have. (I'm firmly in the "This man is completely insane" camp).
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      I'm not convinced of that. I think that to some extent it was RMSs traumatic early career experiences that set him on the path of extreme inspiration that drove the development of some of the most impressive amounts of code by a single individual. It takes real conviction to literally dedicate your life to projects like this, and RMS has that to spare. He's not insane, he is just the opposite of politically correct, and while that can be charming in a person that is not the perceived spokesperson of a large community when you are you'd do well to moderate your language. If you don't it costs because it gives your opponents plenty of opportunity to claim the moral high ground. The funny thing here is that if RMS really wishes to see closed source vs open source as a battlefield then his way of going about waging the war aids the enemy by giving them a couple of really good opportunities to get him bad PR. I don't think that's smart.
      - donaq 17y ago
- Daishiman 17y ago
  Like "the right to read" or "Why schools should use FOSS"? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html . http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html . The essays on intellectual property? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html I'm sorry, but however much I disagree with a lot of RMS's opinions the man has been making spot-on predictions about the development of proprietary software for over 20 years and time has only been proving him right. While many of us appreciate de Icaza's efforts on GNOME, all Mono has done is provide more validation to a fundamentally proprietary platform, when that effort could have been spent creating a FOSS stack that could rival Java and .NET while trying to solve some of their problems.
MarkPNeyer 17y ago
I think he makes some great points. I worked at Microsoft as an Intern for a spell, and contrary to popular belief, there really are plenty of smart, hard working people there.
- michael_h 17y ago
  I don't think very many people are debating that. I wonder if the major disconnect between RMS and deIcaza is that deIcaza deals with the people at Microsoft, whereas RMS only sees them as a corporation. Thus, deIcaza might see them as a diverse and malleable entity and RMS would not. Of course, I don't have the inside scoop here, so I'm just conjecturing and could be completely wrong.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    That's a very interesting observation. The same goes for lots of other organizations, governments and so on.
- m0th87 17y ago
  I interned there as well, and not only did I find plenty of intelligent people there, (including you, what's new Mark? ;) but I also found a hotbed of innovation and unique ideas. I think it's annoying how so many of my peers treat the company like it's a collective of unimaginative, unintelligent sellouts.
jacquesm 17y ago
I don't like cults. I don't like the 'cult of closed software' any more than I like the 'cult of open software'. This is not a war, and anybody that is trying to make it look like one is manipulating people. There is plenty of room on this planet for both closed and open source solutions, let the market decide. Long term that should skew the table in the direction of open source, you really can't compete with free. But there will always be closed source, just as there will always be open source. No need for all this polarizing. Miguel definitely seems to have managed to get to the 'moral high ground' in this whole argument, he comes across as reasonable and nice, but that doesn't mean that that should decide the argument. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, nobody is entitled to their own facts, especially not in something as objectively qualifiable(sp?) as software. This whole 'drama queen' episode has gone on long enough, let both deIcaza and Stallman go back to their respective IDEs (at a guess, Visual Studio and Emacs) and write some code to prove their point instead of all this prose. It's Peyton Place for programmers.
- omouse 17y ago
  I don't like cults. I don't like the 'cult of closed software' any more than I like the 'cult of open software'. What you're saying is you don't want to make a concrete decision and you want options to be open to you. This is not a war, and anybody that is trying to make it look like one is manipulating people. It's a war between many businesses, non-profits, users, developers, etc. Do you want to be stuck with Microsoft Windows everywhere? Or Intel's x86 hardware everywhere? Intel, Microsoft, Apple, etc. will all do what they can to kill the competition. That's not manipulation, that's the truth. You can try and ignore it, but computer history is full of conflict between various companies who tried to force their ideas and "standards" upon the rest of the industry and on their competitors. Maybe you just hate the word "war". Call it competition then, or conflict, or a struggle, or whatever else you want. No need for all this polarizing. Yes there is. One idea is opposed to the other. How can there not be polarization? This whole 'drama queen' episode has gone on long enough, let both deIcaza and Stallman go back to their respective IDEs (at a guess, Visual Studio and Emacs) and write some code to prove their point instead of all this prose. This is actually Stallman's point, and it was also the open source movement's point. Code is not enough. There is also the discussion of freedom or the discussion of marketing. You want to completely ignore the discussion. I don't mind, you can step out if you like, but what you're saying is exactly what a proprietary software company would like. They don't want discussion at all because discussion means legitimizing alternatives. If you don't want to take part in the discussion, the confrontation and war of ideas, then don't take part in it.
Anon84 17y ago
Two shoe salesmen were sent to Africa in the early 1900's to scout the territory. One telegraphed back: "Situation hopeless. Stop. No one wears shoes." The other telegraphed: "Business opportunity. Stop. They have no shoes." Nothing makes a larger difference than knowing an opportunity when you see one.
- wingo 17y ago
  A poignant example -- but I disagree as to its import. A perennial business strategy is to create commercial means for satisfying needs that commerce creates -- of the creation of scarcity out of abundance, be it food, education, health, etc. So it goes with software as well. On one side there is "opportunity"; on the other, exploitation. I don't know how this relates to Miguel & Richard, though; their issue seems to be the classic "radical vs liberal" split.
davidw 17y ago
I like the Linus view: free software is more fun, and better, and so on, so I'll work on that. It concentrates on the positive, rather than saying I want to avoid nasty closed software and telling other people what they should and should not do. Linus also seems like a much happier guy.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- andreyf 17y ago
  But that's a very different point. Stallman sees proprietary software as a violation of fundamental freedoms, like slavery is a violation of fundamental freedoms. Linus also seems like a much happier guy. Judging an idea based on how happy those who believe it are seems like a dangerous heuristic.
  - bdittmer 17y ago
    What about the fundamental freedom to do what you please with your own creation? Stallman never talks about that freedom.
    - coliveira 17y ago
      You touched on the biggest weakness of RMS point of view. If you write software, you have to fundamental right to make it free or not. If you are on the receiving end, you only have to agree with the terms. RMS turns the roles around, and wants to make the user the owner of everything.
      - andreyf 17y ago
        you have to fundamental right to make it free or not False. You do NOT have the right to restrict what I do with "your" ideas, once you've shared them with me - be it software, sonnet, or poem. The government may limit my fundamental freedom by enforcing a limited-time monopoly, but only in order to encourage you to work on your ideas. It is NOT your fundamental right to have such monopoly indefinitely.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
I found it ironic that the latter half seemed to be describing Stallman's tactics as "FUD" without actually using that term. This tactic being famously employed by Microsoft. Of course, another layer of irony is that before Microsoft became the safe choice, this was a favourite tactic of IBM, who are now considered an open source friendly company.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  What if the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is actually justified? I don't think it's necessarily wrong to doubt or be uncertain that corporations have our best interests at heart.
  - SamAtt 17y ago
    The whole point of the phrase FUD is that it's an emotional response. People use it to try to overwhelm someone's rational thought process with Fear. I think you SHOULD use past performance of a corporation as part of a rational thought process in deciding whether to use software. But FUD is never justified because emotion has no place in rational decisions.
saurabh 17y ago
I honestly think RMS is a religious nut in a closet. Sure he has his achievements, but that doesn't give him the right to say what is right and what is wrong. Times have changed and there are people who know better than him about the current problems. Mono is itself cool enough that the community around it will fight against any onslaught. We don't need dictators anymore, we need explorers.
- drhowarddrfine 17y ago
  Miguel is not an explorer. He and Microsoft are land grabbers.
  - saurabh 17y ago
    Just let them whoever they want to be. Causing unnecessary commotion is no way of leading a community.
sivers 17y ago
"Strong opinions are very useful to other people" - Brian Eno Very opinionated people, even if narrow-minded or wrong, are useful to conversations. If you don't have an opinion, you can just say, "Wow. Yeah. I agree with him." If you do have an opinion, you can reflect against that simplistic strong-opinion to explain why it's wrong. Either way, it's good to have some black and white in the paint palette.
- eugenejen 17y ago
  I love citations from Brian Eno. It is nice to see some quotes from masters from different domains.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Sure, you get football players that comment on politics, movie stars that tell you how to run a business (or a state or a country for that matter). No offense to Brian Eno, he's a pretty smart guy and has a lot of stuff to say that makes sense, also outside his domain. (and makes interesting music, 'the pearl' is my favorite music to code by). But it doesn't generalize.
    - KC8ZKF 17y ago
      How are strong opinions outside of Brian Eno's domain?
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        They're not, read again. It's just that it does not generalize from Brian Eno to 'leaders in other fields'. There are people that it applies to and there are those that it definitely doesn't apply to, in other words, being a leader in one domain does not automatically qualify one for comments on other fields, that varies on a case-by-case basis. Brian Eno is exactly the kind of person for who it does seem to work.
- drhodes 17y ago
  An observation from ~2500 years ago: "People with opinions just go around bothering each other." —Siddhartha Gautama
simplegeek 17y ago
Who is Migheul de Icaza? I mean, pardon my ignorance, why what he says is important?
- andreyf 17y ago
  Miguel de Icaza (born c. 1972) is a Mexican free software programmer, best known for starting the GNOME and Mono projects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza
  - simplegeek 17y ago
    Thanks. Many apologies, I had no clue ;(
- viraptor 17y ago
  He started gnome and mono projects, created ximian (now part of novell). IMHO that classifies him as important.
- dagw 17y ago
  Basically he's a guy that's responsible for some quite big open source software projects (GNOME,gnumeric,mono) used by quite a lot of people. He has also received the Free Software Foundation award for the Advancement of Free Software, which is why it is kind of a big deal when RMS turns around and calls him a traitor.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- moron4hire 17y ago
  In the great conversation-that-is-the-internet, why is what anyone says not important, merely for a lack of notoriety?
  - theycallmemorty 17y ago
    Well the thread title seems to imply that this is someone we should care about. "Migheul de Icaza responds to..." vs. "A response to..."
nestlequ1k 17y ago
Huge respect for both Miguel and RMS. Everyone knows RMS says stupid ridiculous things (like his anti-procreation posts on usenet). Seems good enough to disregard him as a nut on some issues, and a genius on others. That said, I don't think I'll ever understand the Mono project. As a former C# coder (back in 2004), the project was doomed to failure from the getgo. No .NET developer in their right mind would use it as it'll always be lacking in features compared to Microsoft's implementation. It's such a sad project because Microsoft gives it no love, yet has no problem using it as an example of how "open" their platform is. Seems like a complete waste of talent to me.
- jeswin 17y ago
  I really think u should read <a>http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2009/09/mono-not-chasing-tail-lights.html</a> http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2009/09/mono-not-chasing.... The larger Mono projects on Linux are built on the language and CLR features implemented in Mono; and don't rely on Microsoft libraries like WinForms. And as far as language features are concerned, the downloadable Mono compiler even implements part of the C# 4 spec. Also, the popular Linux/Mono apps hardly work on Windows. Actually I need not have replied; "....as it'll always be lacking in features compared to Microsoft's implementation" -- i just realized this was pure trolling. Try /.
  - joe_the_user 17y ago
    I've seen large mono project with unresolvable memory leak problems. The problem is that .net is such a vast 'hunk of stuff' that there isn't any way for a single person or a small team to implement is perfectly and the imperfect implementations are fundamentally flawed - ie, memory leaks and strange bugs making mono apps fundamentally unreliable.
  - grogers 17y ago
    "Also, the popular Linux/Mono apps hardly work on Windows." How can this possibly be a good thing? It either means mono is a poor .NET substitute, or the linux mono apps are less cross platform than apps written in other languages - also a bad thing.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
huherto 17y ago
I lost a lot of respect for Miguel when I learned about his political views in Mexican politics.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
known 17y ago
I may be cynical, but whoever (e.g. Miguel de Icaza) aligns with Microsoft should be careful about their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish marketing strategy.
omouse 17y ago
It's hilarious that Miguel thinks RMS is fear-mongering when there is rightly something to fear. RMS has it right when he says, However good or bad the CodePlex Foundation's actions, we must not accept them as an excuse for Microsoft's acts of aggression against our community. From its recent attempt to sell patents to proxy trolls who could then do dirty work against GNU/Linux to its longstanding promotion of Digital Restrictions Management, Microsoft continues to act to harm us. We would be fools indeed to let anything distract us from that. It isn't fear-mongering when there is something to fear. Miguel also has a short memory and doesn't remember all the times Microsoft has spread FUD about GNU/Linux and free software.
- tedunangst 17y ago
  Microsoft is a large company. There are different divisions with different objectives. When one part of the company tries to extend the olive branch and you come back with the pitchforks, that's not exactly encouraging the division that may be on your side that you're worth fighting for. Who do you think has a better chance of changing Microsoft's policies? RMS or a group of people working internally?
  - joe_the_user 17y ago
    Microsoft may be large but last I looked it wasn't a democracy. The top management of any large company is paid to bring a single 'strategic vision' to the company. Microsoft's top management clearly considered attacking open source to be in their interests when they did it previous. Seems like an indication they'll do it again.
    - tedunangst 17y ago
      The top management of any large company receives input and advise from their underlings. Those underlings are more likely to propose controversial changes to corporate strategy if they aren't getting tarred and feathered by the outsiders they're trying to work with.

54 points by michael_h 17y ago

yan 17y ago

The more of Stallman's writing you read, the more you realize how insane that man is.

barrkel 17y ago
http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossible.mp3 http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossi... (FWIW, I respect rms's purity of ideology, and I respect how it broadens the debate, but I don't think his extreme represents a desired end goal.)
- bbgm 17y ago
  And I have the opposite opinion. Ideology = a lack of flexibility and a very closed mind, neither of which is a constructive state and achieves little in the long run.
  - barrkel 17y ago
    Most people don't have the courage of conviction. To stake out a position with a mental framework that supports it, and to live by what that position implies, is difficult. I don't think one can say that RMS didn't achieve much. He supplied the seed, directly or indirectly, to many free and open software accomplishments. I don't think that would have happened if he'd been wishy-washy, flexible, easy-going guy. He'd certainly have been easier to like, but probably not as effective. And to reiterate, I don't subscribe to rms's opinion, or think he's right on everything, or anything in particular without further investigation. But I do think lack of compromise is harder than it looks.
- yan 17y ago
  What's there to respect about purity of ideology? Being pure and ignorant of other opinions is the easy way out. Learning and understanding alternate points of view and working with those people is what's worth respect, imho.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    Being pure and ignorant of other opinions is the easy way out. There is nothing in ideological purity that demands ignorance of other opinions. And just because you're cognizant of someone's opinion, doesn't mean you have to agree. RMS can say what he wants, and I'm sure he's not ignorant of other's opinions. If you don't like what he says, don't do what he says. If you don't like his philosophy, maybe you shouldn't use GNU software? He doesn't force you to use any software. (Which is more than can be said for lots of corporations.)
    - yan 17y ago
      That's exactly opposite of what I think is actually going on. I don't want to get into a GPL vs BSD argument, but he does say people should not use commercial software, thus limiting their options to often less useful free software equivalents. And corporations do give you choice in usage as you can always opt to not buy software from them. A well-regulated commercial market is all about choice.
      - gloob 17y ago
        he does say people should not use commercial software Commercial != non-free. Stallman doesn't, to my knowledge, have an issue with the former. He rather dislikes the latter.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    In striking martial arts, they teach you to aim your strikes at a point beyond the real point where your strike will end.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- Nelson69 17y ago
  I respect the hell out of RMS and his accomplishments. On this and some other issues I do think there is a blurriness to his ideology. Technologies don't have an intrinsic goodness or evilness to them, even DRM, it's just technology the good and the evil come from how it is used. So I look at something like Mono, it's a remarkable piece of technology. It's a fairly lightweight managed VM, just like Java but completely and 100% opensource, built on opensource for opensource. It works too and it works pretty well at what it does. There is no "good" or "evil" component to it. Now Microsoft potentially have patents that cover parts of it that they could threaten to use, that's a risk but that risk will also expire at some point. The Linux kernel also has patents that potentially cover parts of it, including patents the Microsoft owns but that's not being treated as a taboo... RMS waters his own statement down by blurring that line between technologies and how the technologies are used. Instead of bullying Miguel, he should bully MS to further clarify their stance and continue to open their position on the technologies used by Mono. he should be fighting to free that stuff rather than bash one of the biggest contributors to his movement.
stcredzero 17y ago
RMS isn't insane. It's just that he's willing to extrapolate his ideas into seemingly insane territory. He is right in that corporations are making scary inroads into our rights online and with regards to privacy. But we may not agree in terms of what to do about it. I think FOSS can "embrace and extend" just as well as Microsoft!
- youngian 17y ago
  I've always felt that RMS is basically an extremist (every movement has them). But I think that's actually a good thing. Yeah, he says some crazy things, but his ideas are always worth listening to. It's for the best that most of us don't take such a hard line, but I think it's a good thing to have someone like RMS constantly calling us out when we stray too far from the vision. The end goal should still be a world unencumbered by closed software. We don't want to get so busy implementing .NET that we forget about that.
igorgue 17y ago
and the more we forget how much RMS did. People lose respect to him, I even heard people saying: "and what did he write? Emacs? nobody use that sh*t", the fact is, a lot of todays innovation is built on top of Stallman's work.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  That's a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how much he did, if he says or does stuff today that doesn't hold water he should be called on it. If all the software that deIcaza and Stallman helped produce would be removed from your average Ubuntu box it would probably not get into booting, let alone do something useful. That doesn't give either of them the right to pretend to speak for everybody or to try to carve up the world of software in to camps.
- axod 17y ago
  I'd say that it's very likely that if he hadn't done it, others would have. (I'm firmly in the "This man is completely insane" camp).
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I'm not convinced of that. I think that to some extent it was RMSs traumatic early career experiences that set him on the path of extreme inspiration that drove the development of some of the most impressive amounts of code by a single individual. It takes real conviction to literally dedicate your life to projects like this, and RMS has that to spare. He's not insane, he is just the opposite of politically correct, and while that can be charming in a person that is not the perceived spokesperson of a large community when you are you'd do well to moderate your language. If you don't it costs because it gives your opponents plenty of opportunity to claim the moral high ground. The funny thing here is that if RMS really wishes to see closed source vs open source as a battlefield then his way of going about waging the war aids the enemy by giving them a couple of really good opportunities to get him bad PR. I don't think that's smart.
    - donaq 17y ago
Daishiman 17y ago
Like "the right to read" or "Why schools should use FOSS"? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html . http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html . The essays on intellectual property? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html I'm sorry, but however much I disagree with a lot of RMS's opinions the man has been making spot-on predictions about the development of proprietary software for over 20 years and time has only been proving him right. While many of us appreciate de Icaza's efforts on GNOME, all Mono has done is provide more validation to a fundamentally proprietary platform, when that effort could have been spent creating a FOSS stack that could rival Java and .NET while trying to solve some of their problems.

MarkPNeyer 17y ago

I think he makes some great points. I worked at Microsoft as an Intern for a spell, and contrary to popular belief, there really are plenty of smart, hard working people there.

michael_h 17y ago
I don't think very many people are debating that. I wonder if the major disconnect between RMS and deIcaza is that deIcaza deals with the people at Microsoft, whereas RMS only sees them as a corporation. Thus, deIcaza might see them as a diverse and malleable entity and RMS would not. Of course, I don't have the inside scoop here, so I'm just conjecturing and could be completely wrong.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  That's a very interesting observation. The same goes for lots of other organizations, governments and so on.
m0th87 17y ago
I interned there as well, and not only did I find plenty of intelligent people there, (including you, what's new Mark? ;) but I also found a hotbed of innovation and unique ideas. I think it's annoying how so many of my peers treat the company like it's a collective of unimaginative, unintelligent sellouts.

jacquesm 17y ago

I don't like cults. I don't like the 'cult of closed software' any more than I like the 'cult of open software'. This is not a war, and anybody that is trying to make it look like one is manipulating people. There is plenty of room on this planet for both closed and open source solutions, let the market decide. Long term that should skew the table in the direction of open source, you really can't compete with free. But there will always be closed source, just as there will always be open source. No need for all this polarizing. Miguel definitely seems to have managed to get to the 'moral high ground' in this whole argument, he comes across as reasonable and nice, but that doesn't mean that that should decide the argument. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, nobody is entitled to their own facts, especially not in something as objectively qualifiable(sp?) as software. This whole 'drama queen' episode has gone on long enough, let both deIcaza and Stallman go back to their respective IDEs (at a guess, Visual Studio and Emacs) and write some code to prove their point instead of all this prose. It's Peyton Place for programmers.

omouse 17y ago
I don't like cults. I don't like the 'cult of closed software' any more than I like the 'cult of open software'. What you're saying is you don't want to make a concrete decision and you want options to be open to you. This is not a war, and anybody that is trying to make it look like one is manipulating people. It's a war between many businesses, non-profits, users, developers, etc. Do you want to be stuck with Microsoft Windows everywhere? Or Intel's x86 hardware everywhere? Intel, Microsoft, Apple, etc. will all do what they can to kill the competition. That's not manipulation, that's the truth. You can try and ignore it, but computer history is full of conflict between various companies who tried to force their ideas and "standards" upon the rest of the industry and on their competitors. Maybe you just hate the word "war". Call it competition then, or conflict, or a struggle, or whatever else you want. No need for all this polarizing. Yes there is. One idea is opposed to the other. How can there not be polarization? This whole 'drama queen' episode has gone on long enough, let both deIcaza and Stallman go back to their respective IDEs (at a guess, Visual Studio and Emacs) and write some code to prove their point instead of all this prose. This is actually Stallman's point, and it was also the open source movement's point. Code is not enough. There is also the discussion of freedom or the discussion of marketing. You want to completely ignore the discussion. I don't mind, you can step out if you like, but what you're saying is exactly what a proprietary software company would like. They don't want discussion at all because discussion means legitimizing alternatives. If you don't want to take part in the discussion, the confrontation and war of ideas, then don't take part in it.

Anon84 17y ago

Two shoe salesmen were sent to Africa in the early 1900's to scout the territory. One telegraphed back: "Situation hopeless. Stop. No one wears shoes." The other telegraphed: "Business opportunity. Stop. They have no shoes." Nothing makes a larger difference than knowing an opportunity when you see one.

wingo 17y ago
A poignant example -- but I disagree as to its import. A perennial business strategy is to create commercial means for satisfying needs that commerce creates -- of the creation of scarcity out of abundance, be it food, education, health, etc. So it goes with software as well. On one side there is "opportunity"; on the other, exploitation. I don't know how this relates to Miguel & Richard, though; their issue seems to be the classic "radical vs liberal" split.

davidw 17y ago

I like the Linus view: free software is more fun, and better, and so on, so I'll work on that. It concentrates on the positive, rather than saying I want to avoid nasty closed software and telling other people what they should and should not do. Linus also seems like a much happier guy.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
andreyf 17y ago
But that's a very different point. Stallman sees proprietary software as a violation of fundamental freedoms, like slavery is a violation of fundamental freedoms. Linus also seems like a much happier guy. Judging an idea based on how happy those who believe it are seems like a dangerous heuristic.
- bdittmer 17y ago
  What about the fundamental freedom to do what you please with your own creation? Stallman never talks about that freedom.
  - coliveira 17y ago
    You touched on the biggest weakness of RMS point of view. If you write software, you have to fundamental right to make it free or not. If you are on the receiving end, you only have to agree with the terms. RMS turns the roles around, and wants to make the user the owner of everything.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      you have to fundamental right to make it free or not False. You do NOT have the right to restrict what I do with "your" ideas, once you've shared them with me - be it software, sonnet, or poem. The government may limit my fundamental freedom by enforcing a limited-time monopoly, but only in order to encourage you to work on your ideas. It is NOT your fundamental right to have such monopoly indefinitely.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

I found it ironic that the latter half seemed to be describing Stallman's tactics as "FUD" without actually using that term. This tactic being famously employed by Microsoft. Of course, another layer of irony is that before Microsoft became the safe choice, this was a favourite tactic of IBM, who are now considered an open source friendly company.

stcredzero 17y ago
What if the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is actually justified? I don't think it's necessarily wrong to doubt or be uncertain that corporations have our best interests at heart.
- SamAtt 17y ago
  The whole point of the phrase FUD is that it's an emotional response. People use it to try to overwhelm someone's rational thought process with Fear. I think you SHOULD use past performance of a corporation as part of a rational thought process in deciding whether to use software. But FUD is never justified because emotion has no place in rational decisions.

saurabh 17y ago

I honestly think RMS is a religious nut in a closet. Sure he has his achievements, but that doesn't give him the right to say what is right and what is wrong. Times have changed and there are people who know better than him about the current problems. Mono is itself cool enough that the community around it will fight against any onslaught. We don't need dictators anymore, we need explorers.

drhowarddrfine 17y ago
Miguel is not an explorer. He and Microsoft are land grabbers.
- saurabh 17y ago
  Just let them whoever they want to be. Causing unnecessary commotion is no way of leading a community.

sivers 17y ago

"Strong opinions are very useful to other people" - Brian Eno Very opinionated people, even if narrow-minded or wrong, are useful to conversations. If you don't have an opinion, you can just say, "Wow. Yeah. I agree with him." If you do have an opinion, you can reflect against that simplistic strong-opinion to explain why it's wrong. Either way, it's good to have some black and white in the paint palette.

eugenejen 17y ago
I love citations from Brian Eno. It is nice to see some quotes from masters from different domains.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Sure, you get football players that comment on politics, movie stars that tell you how to run a business (or a state or a country for that matter). No offense to Brian Eno, he's a pretty smart guy and has a lot of stuff to say that makes sense, also outside his domain. (and makes interesting music, 'the pearl' is my favorite music to code by). But it doesn't generalize.
  - KC8ZKF 17y ago
    How are strong opinions outside of Brian Eno's domain?
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      They're not, read again. It's just that it does not generalize from Brian Eno to 'leaders in other fields'. There are people that it applies to and there are those that it definitely doesn't apply to, in other words, being a leader in one domain does not automatically qualify one for comments on other fields, that varies on a case-by-case basis. Brian Eno is exactly the kind of person for who it does seem to work.
drhodes 17y ago
An observation from ~2500 years ago: "People with opinions just go around bothering each other." —Siddhartha Gautama

simplegeek 17y ago

Who is Migheul de Icaza? I mean, pardon my ignorance, why what he says is important?

andreyf 17y ago
Miguel de Icaza (born c. 1972) is a Mexican free software programmer, best known for starting the GNOME and Mono projects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza
- simplegeek 17y ago
  Thanks. Many apologies, I had no clue ;(
viraptor 17y ago
He started gnome and mono projects, created ximian (now part of novell). IMHO that classifies him as important.
dagw 17y ago
Basically he's a guy that's responsible for some quite big open source software projects (GNOME,gnumeric,mono) used by quite a lot of people. He has also received the Free Software Foundation award for the Advancement of Free Software, which is why it is kind of a big deal when RMS turns around and calls him a traitor.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
moron4hire 17y ago
In the great conversation-that-is-the-internet, why is what anyone says not important, merely for a lack of notoriety?
- theycallmemorty 17y ago
  Well the thread title seems to imply that this is someone we should care about. "Migheul de Icaza responds to..." vs. "A response to..."

nestlequ1k 17y ago

Huge respect for both Miguel and RMS. Everyone knows RMS says stupid ridiculous things (like his anti-procreation posts on usenet). Seems good enough to disregard him as a nut on some issues, and a genius on others. That said, I don't think I'll ever understand the Mono project. As a former C# coder (back in 2004), the project was doomed to failure from the getgo. No .NET developer in their right mind would use it as it'll always be lacking in features compared to Microsoft's implementation. It's such a sad project because Microsoft gives it no love, yet has no problem using it as an example of how "open" their platform is. Seems like a complete waste of talent to me.

jeswin 17y ago
I really think u should read <a>http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2009/09/mono-not-chasing-tail-lights.html</a> http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2009/09/mono-not-chasing.... The larger Mono projects on Linux are built on the language and CLR features implemented in Mono; and don't rely on Microsoft libraries like WinForms. And as far as language features are concerned, the downloadable Mono compiler even implements part of the C# 4 spec. Also, the popular Linux/Mono apps hardly work on Windows. Actually I need not have replied; "....as it'll always be lacking in features compared to Microsoft's implementation" -- i just realized this was pure trolling. Try /.
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  I've seen large mono project with unresolvable memory leak problems. The problem is that .net is such a vast 'hunk of stuff' that there isn't any way for a single person or a small team to implement is perfectly and the imperfect implementations are fundamentally flawed - ie, memory leaks and strange bugs making mono apps fundamentally unreliable.
- grogers 17y ago
  "Also, the popular Linux/Mono apps hardly work on Windows." How can this possibly be a good thing? It either means mono is a poor .NET substitute, or the linux mono apps are less cross platform than apps written in other languages - also a bad thing.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

huherto 17y ago

I lost a lot of respect for Miguel when I learned about his political views in Mexican politics.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

known 17y ago

I may be cynical, but whoever (e.g. Miguel de Icaza) aligns with Microsoft should be careful about their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish marketing strategy.

omouse 17y ago

It's hilarious that Miguel thinks RMS is fear-mongering when there is rightly something to fear. RMS has it right when he says, However good or bad the CodePlex Foundation's actions, we must not accept them as an excuse for Microsoft's acts of aggression against our community. From its recent attempt to sell patents to proxy trolls who could then do dirty work against GNU/Linux to its longstanding promotion of Digital Restrictions Management, Microsoft continues to act to harm us. We would be fools indeed to let anything distract us from that. It isn't fear-mongering when there is something to fear. Miguel also has a short memory and doesn't remember all the times Microsoft has spread FUD about GNU/Linux and free software.

tedunangst 17y ago
Microsoft is a large company. There are different divisions with different objectives. When one part of the company tries to extend the olive branch and you come back with the pitchforks, that's not exactly encouraging the division that may be on your side that you're worth fighting for. Who do you think has a better chance of changing Microsoft's policies? RMS or a group of people working internally?
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  Microsoft may be large but last I looked it wasn't a democracy. The top management of any large company is paid to bring a single 'strategic vision' to the company. Microsoft's top management clearly considered attacking open source to be in their interests when they did it previous. Seems like an indication they'll do it again.
  - tedunangst 17y ago
    The top management of any large company receives input and advise from their underlings. Those underlings are more likely to propose controversial changes to corporate strategy if they aren't getting tarred and feathered by the outsiders they're trying to work with.