Wow – lots of interesting stuff to blog about today!
Mr. Asay, Canonical COO, blogs up “Life’s too short for partisanship“.
Let’s break it on down
If Microsoft warms up to open source, why not share some plaudits? And even when it gets things wrong, surely it’s better to politely critique rather than spew invectives?
In the real world, appeasement very rarely works – and even rarer still for profit-based entities to respond to non-profit based approaches. Hostile entities very rarely respond to “polite critiques”. Do you know what Microsoft responds to? Customer demand and decreasing market share. I shouldn’t have to be explaining this to a COO.
Do you know what Linux has been managing to do since day 1 – despite Microsoft trying to destroy it at every turn? Increasing customer demand for Linux products and decreasing Microsoft market share.
As this progresses, Microsoft will continue to publicly pretend to embrace Open Source and Linux, while (more) carefully attempt to retard it behind-the-scenes. They have little choice, because their customer base will not tolerate direct attacks on Linux, while their business model will not tolerate allowing Linux to grow unhindered.
I have cat-like reactions
The reactions possible are not limited to ”polite critiques” or “spew invectives”, and though I appreciate the rhetorical power of the False Dilemma, it is still a logical fallacy nonetheless.
People that point out Microsoft’s past and current attacks on Open Source, Linux and user freedoms are not “spewing invectives” – they are simply reciting facts. I’m sorry the facts are uncomfortable for Microsoft and Team Apologista, but you make your bed and you lie in it.
People that do not want Microsoft baked into every level of their Linux experience are not “spewing invectives”: Perhaps they see no need to rely on a court-convicted abusive monopolist. Perhaps, having finally broke free of Microsoft lock-in, they hesitate to expose themselves again. Perhaps they see how far Linux has come despite Microsoft’s best efforts, and see no margin in changing.
People that have moral, ethical and philosophical objections to the restriction of user freedoms are not “spewing invectives” – they are simply attempting to live a life in harmony with their beliefs.
Stop trying to paint all criticism as “invectives” or “zealotry” or whatever derogatory and dismissive label you would rather apply than actually deal with the substance of the criticism.
The mythical community
But we don’t need to be partisan whiners and windbags along the way toward total world domination. Let the politicians beat each other up. We should be bigger than they. More like a community.
Microsoft is not part of the community because they want to control what they can and destroy what they can not. ‘Twas not I, you, or Linux that set them down that road, friend. Microsoft freely chose that path.
If you want to talk about smoothing out differences between actual community members (like GNOME vs KDE or Ubuntu vs RHEL), that’s one thing – and a good thing. But placing Microsoft in the same category is dishonest.
Getting old
I do agree with Mr. Asay that “it gets old”. Which is why I honestly don’t understand those who intentionally fire things up by promoting Microsoft technology. You know it will be controversial. You know it will cause problems. That is obvious, inarguable and proven time and time again.
So, why do it? And, then having done this thing you knew would be divisive, pretend to be suprised and against divisiveness?
That’s what gets old to me.
#1 by Matt Asay on March 23, 2010 - 10:10 am
You latched onto the “M” word so quickly it seems to have blinded you to everything else I wrote. We really do need to get off the Microsoft fetish. The world is not nearly so binary, and Microsoft is hardly the worst actor in many cases.
#2 by Jason on March 23, 2010 - 11:18 am
Thank you for your comments!
I was blinded I guess — oh, except for that part where I explictly agree that “smoothing out differences between actual community members is a good thing”. I guess my eyes were open there.
The failing in your postings – as I perceive them – is that you position Microsoft equal to actual FLOSS participants.
I focus on that one part because I’m mainly with you, except for that one part.
#3 by T. J. Brumfield on March 26, 2010 - 2:43 am
This is one of the rare times I completely agree with Matt.
The issue isn’t perceiving Microsoft as an equal, but rather simply that mud-slinging, partisan bickering and negativity being the wrong approach in most any circumstance.
I’ve long said myself that the angry rants of zealotry that we see coming out of the FSF-camp don’t help the image of FOSS in the enterprise world.
Instead of railing about we perceive to be evil, let’s present in civil tones what we perceive to be the advantages of a FOSS environment.
The only time we need to concern ourselves with Microsoft is in doing fair product comparisons.
#4 by Jason on March 26, 2010 - 7:18 am
T.J.,
Thank you for your comments! Let me say that I think I agree with your overall message, but the devil is in the details of course!
Detail One: On Zealotry
I think that some people try to portray any commentary contrary to their goals as “mud-slinging” and so forth. I’m so tired of hearing “zealotry” thrown around, I want to vomit. Even RMS, King Zealot of FSF ZealotLand takes care to say things like:
Oh, Richard, you crazy zealot! If you actually read what RMS says I think you’ll find it’s not very “zealotry” at all! I think you’ll find that people intentionally misrepresent and distort what RMS and the FSF say because they can’t attack the actual message.
Detail Two: When to worry?
You say the “only time we need to concern ourselves with Microsoft is in doing fair product comparisons.”
But:
I am concerned with Microsoft when I see people actively promoting Microsoft in distros. Do you not consider that an appropriate time?
I am concerned with Microsoft when I see distros changing default search provider to Microsoft. Do you not consider that an appropriate time?
I am concerned with Microsoft when I see Microsoft waving patent FUD at Linux. Do you not consider that an appropriate time?
I am concerned with Microsoft when I see front organizations lobbying governments to stigmatize Open Source. Do you not consider that an appropriate time?
Quite the contrary to your point – one of the few times I am not very concerned with Microsoft is when doing fair product comparisons! If the comparison is fair, then Open Source/Linux will win on its merits more often than not [1] and we can all be happy!
So, I hope you can see why I might take issue with Mr. Asay here.
That being said, I’m very interested in presenting a positive and effective message for FLOSS both within and without the community – and I welcome commentary on how to do that!
[1] See, even I can admit there may exist some cases where Microsoft has a superior product!
#5 by T. J. Brumfield on March 26, 2010 - 9:18 am
I would hope that RMS would advocate freedom of expression. As Voltaire said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
However, this is the same RMS who has said that Firefox doesn’t count as FOSS because it enables users to install proprietary extensions and plugins. He advocates closed ecosystems, which I find to be counter-intuitive to the ideals of freedom.
As for worrying about Microsoft, during the ISO process for OOXML, they appeared to bribe foreign officials, which is against the law. I could get angry, but it doesn’t seem to do much good. I think the only government/regulatory board that will hold Microsoft accountable for their actions seems to be the EU.
#6 by Jason on March 26, 2010 - 9:35 am
@T.J.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Here is exactly what Stallman said about Firefox:
This is 100% factual, reasonable and not-zealoty-at-all.
However, you have represented RMS as taking a position he absolutely did not take, and which portrays him as a zealot out of touch with reality. The fact of the matter, though, is that Stallman spoke 100% accurately and did not take anything like the position to which you are ascribing him.
Now I am not leveling the following directly at you, but this sort of thing is why I now tend to reject such criticism of RMS/FSF/Free Software out of hand: because it almost always turns out to either be ignorant or malicious.
Next time you think you must take issue with RMS, I encourage you to get your information from the source. (thankyoui’llbehereallnight-trytheveal)
#7 by T. J. Brumfield on March 26, 2010 - 1:03 pm
Actually, I’ve seen direct quotes where he has demanded that Mozilla block “non-free” extensions.
He blasted Ubuntu for including Firefox back in their 7.04 release because Mozilla claims trademarks on their icons and branding.
Here he claims that merely by allowing javascript in any browser you’re falling into the “trap” of allowing non-free software.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
He writes about why copyright shouldn’t be allowed:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
He had quotes on Wikiquotes at one point from his college days in which he insisted that he would never in good conscience agree to a software license. Obviously that view changed through the years as he developed one.
He once held the belief that no one should be able to charge for software, but also changed that belief by the time he first drafted the GPL.
He claims to “save people” from proprietary software like it is some evil, or a plague. He has also recently called cloud computing “stupidity”.
I’m a proponent of the virtues of FOSS. But it isn’t the only way, nor always the right way to develop software. RMS insists on 100% free software, which is actually limiting choice.
#8 by Jason on March 26, 2010 - 1:21 pm
T.J.
OK, I’m afraid I’m not seeing anything different here. So this is my last message on the subject. As is my custom, you are welcome to have the last word.
First you say that RMS “said that Firefox doesn’t count as FOSS”, now you have moved the goalposts into claiming that he “demanded” Mozilla block some extensions.
I hate to do this but….
[Citation Needed]
From there you branch out into other criticisms, like the Javascript “trap”. Which, by the way, is a perfectly fine article and issue. If you value avoiding non-free software, then Javascript use does indeed present a “trap”. This article and others like it calmly and rationally address this issue. I fail to see any irrational zealotry in the article.
Next you say RMS says “copyright shouldn’t be allowed”, but this is a misrepresentation of his position. RMS is arguing that software should not have owners (it’s right there in the title), and copyright – being based in printing – is a bad fit for software. It’s not an attack on copyright in general, but on the poor match between copyright and software. I fail to see any irrational zealotry in the article.
You follow that up with unsourced paraphrases of RMS which I have no choice but to also doubt accurately represent RMS’ positions.
#9 by nautical on March 26, 2010 - 10:05 pm
For what it’s worth, the “moving the goalposts” is known as the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. Logical fallacies make for good bingo on most posts/blogs concerning the FSF or RMS.
#10 by nautical on March 24, 2010 - 8:08 am
Bug #1 in Ubuntu: Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug, which Ubuntu is designed to fix.
furthermore, from the bug report:
What should happen:
1. A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software like Ubuntu.
So not only is ubuntu based on a direct competitive attitude towards Microsoft(‘s marketshare), it’s also rapidly making a mess of the proposed solution with ubuntu becoming ever more a platform to distribute proprietary software on instead of propagating the proposed “include only free software”
I know it’s not your fault that you’re not aware of such details; you didn’t hire yourself as COO for ubuntu (and I’m sure you will try to do a good job to the best of your ability), but some headhunter (presumably) made some easy unwarranted money doing so.
#11 by T. J. Brumfield on March 26, 2010 - 2:45 am
Quote:
“A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software like Ubuntu.”
Only free software? Isn’t that a oxymoron?
Restricting user choice is a removal of freedom. I’m all for promoting FOSS, but we should be enabling choice in the world where most users feel Microsoft is the only choice.
Removing choice and demanding users buy into a closed ecosystem of GPL-only software is just as bad as a closed ecosystem of Microsoft-only software.
#12 by nautical on March 26, 2010 - 8:19 pm
>Only free software? Isn’t that a oxymoron?
ubuntu’s words, not mine. But yeah, “only free software *like ubuntu*” would be one.
>Restricting user choice is a removal of freedom
“Choice is good” is mainly an open-source mantra, that unsurprisingly MS and other proprietary vendors quickly latched on to and contorted.
>Removing choice and demanding users buy into a closed ecosystem of GPL-only software is just as bad as a closed ecosystem of Microsoft-only software.
Free Software is not equal to GPL-only.
And comparing a “closed eco-system of [Free Software]-only and “a closed system of Microsoft-only software” is not right, it’s not even wrong.
#13 by Martin on March 24, 2010 - 5:34 pm
I read Matt’s article first and left the following comment:
Hi Matt,
You really have a very deep misunderstanding in one specific aspect of this: you want to compete with Microsoft, Microsoft does not want to compete with you. There is a subtle point here, they will destroy you if they know they can get away with it. That’s different to competing and everyone in the FOSS community knows Microsoft’s intentions, except maybe… you.
While I always enjoy your writings this seems to be your one blind spot where you refuse to call a spade a spade. You’re talking about partisanship but you’ve missed the boat. It has nothing to do with partisanship, it is acknowledging that Microsoft’s intentions are to destroy it’s enemies, not beat them through superior products and marketing (i.e. competition). Microsoft will NEVER compete with you if it can avoid it by destroying you. Microsoft holds a knife behind it’s back with one hand while the other is extended for a handshake accompanied by a broad smile. 25 years of Microsoft behaviour supports what I just said, yet you refuse to believe me.
So the anger that may be directed towards your “pro” Microsoft writings are not because no one can accept that we should all just live together in a commune with group hugs it is simply that these, highly intelligent people, are outraged that you refuse to acknowledge Microsoft’s destructive history. And due to their destructive history which has not changed (they have just been a bit smarter at hiding it) we can very safely predict, with a high level of certainty, their future behaviour.
So while you can speak freely about Microsoft as is your right, don’t be surprised when this explodes in your face. The people in the FOSS community are a principled lot and they will not accept someone’s writings that pretend that Microsoft’s past is not littered with hundreds of thousands of corpses. If Microsoft were a dictator it would be Robert Mugabe.
But lets pretend that’s not so… let’s pretend they really deep down inside just want to be loved…
#14 by Matt on March 24, 2010 - 8:35 pm
uh,typo?
“People that do want want Microsoft baked into every level of their Linux experience are not “spewing invectives”:”
want want?
#15 by Jason on March 25, 2010 - 5:04 am
Matt,
I am the typo king!
Thanks – corrected.
#16 by Steve Szmidt on March 24, 2010 - 10:10 pm
Well put Martin!
I too have noticed how Matt has tried to promote Microsoft as a neighbor that we should just get along with and stop TP’ing his house.
I have no idea what Matt’s disposition is, as I’ve never met him, but I kind of get the idea that he thinks they deserve to be treated nicely, or maybe that they will become nicer if we are nice to them. Which is a very nice thought, but entirely without merit.
My analogy is – If someone has been killing off your friends and now is coming to your house claiming to make nice with you, you don’t then carry on as if nothing is wrong. That would be very bad move and you and your friends would soon be dead as well.
Microsoft has not played nice for decades, as you pointed out, their operating basis is to run competition out of business. Just because one MS employee says something that sounds nice and neighborly, does not mean they have changed their colors. One has to be really naive to buy such an attempt.
The basic truth is that Microsoft is only interested in improving their bottom line at our expense. Promoting that they are not, is an enemy act.
Microsoft is covertly hostile which is probably why some people, who cannot confront the fact that some people are evil minded, jump on any excuse to call them friends.
Microsoft, all by themselves, chose to attack us using methods unbecoming of a gentleman. To put it nicely.
This is the second article Matt has written from the angle that Microsoft is just a misunderstood child who needs our love. Promoting that we can and should get in bed with them.
I firmly believe that Matt needs to decide on who’s side he is. Right now his enemy actions are putting people who read his articles at risk.
#17 by Wu MingShi on March 24, 2010 - 11:09 pm
Dear Matt
Section : ‘I have cat-like reaction’, para 3
“People that do want want Microsoft …”
There is two ‘want’ there, I was not sure should the first ‘want’ be ‘not’ instead. Can you clarify please?
#18 by phaoUNTOtom on March 24, 2010 - 11:12 pm
Jason,
Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is exactly how I feel . . . and well worded.
If Microsoft employees are reading this, then I hope they really listen to what we are saying. If they don’t then they are cutting off their own air supply as it will be self defeating to them. The internal contention within Microsoft is going to increase and they will end up dying.
Matt, if you are reading more of these comments, then Microsoft’s *recurrent* actions always speak louder than their words.
With other software alternatives now in place, the world can allow the Monopoly to die. The era of Microsoft may be over. Regardless of what happens with Microsft, the point is that if any company is to learn something from Microsoft, then it is not to embrace (a partnership with) these Microsoft, draconian principles. Their are higher principles to live by in the real world.
Microsoft, are you listening to those who provide your air supply? Matt, are you listening?
#19 by Ed Landaveri on March 25, 2010 - 5:04 am
Please do not offend Robert Mugabe’s memory. He was to small to compare to MS.
Matt how much money MS is paying you to exalt it’s NEW VIRTUES? The only blind is you and is sad you REFUSE to acknowledge this.
How do you pretend to make the whole world to forget over 25 of MS history. These are FACTS that you are trying to hide alongside with many paid pseudo journalists and apologists.
Your attitude to pretend the whole world to believe that MS have change makes everyone to realize that you ARE an MS apologist. Poor Ubuntu where was Mark’s head when he hired you. As for me and my acquaintances bye bye Ubuntu! Any distribution that serves as a platform to distribute proprietary software does NOT deserve our attention.
You know the facts and want to hide them as MS when they’re trying to rewrite history. Thus the question on how much are you being paid for. You just follow MS and Himmler’s:
‘Lie, lie, lie, something will remain”
#20 by Abe on March 26, 2010 - 3:37 am
I always compared MS with a venomous snake and no matter what Matt Asay or anyone else says, I will not change my mind. I am a Kubuntu user and it won’t be long before I to jump to another disto (PCLinuxOS) with KDE 4.x.
To be safe from it, you don’t play with it because that certainly will kill you. You don’t avoid it and let it be in the neighborhood, because one day it will sneak up on you to deliver a deadly bite. The only way to be certainly safe from its wrath and deadly bite is to leave it with a paper thin head.
In spite of the numerous vicious attacks by MS’s, FOSS withstood all of it and maintained its progress and proliferation. FOSS doesn’t need MS cooperation or participation, so why do we need to be partisan with a ruthless enemy?
What it is puzzling to me is why Canonical needs to be bi-partisan with MS? I guess we will find out in time.
#21 by T. J. Brumfield on March 26, 2010 - 6:35 am
Kubuntu is the worst KDE 4.x distro I’ve tested. Whether you object to Matt’s comments or not (I fear many here are misconstruing them) you should consider looking at another KDE 4.x distro. I recommend openSUSE personally.
#22 by Abe on March 26, 2010 - 10:46 am
Actually, Suse was my first distro and for several years until Novell signed its controversial agreement with MS. I moved to PCLinuxOS until KDE 4.0 was released but PCLinuxOS stayed with KDE 3.5.x. I understand why but I moved to Kubuntu because I saw the potential of KDE 4.x way back when it was initially released. Now PCLOS will soon be released with KDE 4.4.1, I will go back to it as soon as it is released.
I like Kubuntu since it is based on Debian and uses Aptitude/dpkg. It has been running pretty good on my machines. But since Canonical’s direction (Mono, Yahoo, and now Matt Asya playing footsie with MS), I am sure I won’t keep it unless it totally breaks away from Canonical.
#23 by Jose_X on March 26, 2010 - 4:37 am
Reconcile
– (a) a company whose business model relies on monopoly grip, including, maintaining trade secret status for source code, placing as many obstacles in front of the competition as they can get away with or eliminating competition entirely, and charging as high of a price as they can charge — their stockholders expect to continue to enjoy the fruits of this approach,
with each of
– (b1) a large group of developers that want to have control of their software and facilitate things for each other so they can build greater works with less effort, and
– (b2) a larger community that wants to be able to have their software audited to verify the software is not working against them.
– (b3) people who dislike those that abuse power, take as much advantage of others as they can, or are willing to deceive as much as necessary to maximize profits.
Matt knows there isn’t much here that is reconcilable for these groups, but his perspective is of someone whose primary concern is making a buck and doesn’t really care if his software is proprietary and he doesn’t code.
Perhaps Matt hopes FOSS developers and many that do not trust abusing agents will stop being like that and simply allow his buck to be made more easily.
I suppose Matt can keep hoping we will simply behave, and he can keep trying to open doors for Microsoft.
Microsoft’s employees and management can also keep hoping.
Does anyone disagree with this observation?
#24 by Jose_X on March 26, 2010 - 9:11 am
http://www.the-source.com/open-source-at-microsoft/
The link lists a bunch of Microsoft quotes so that we have an idea of the Microsoft Matt and others are trying to sell us. We can simply look through court documents (or Comes Exhibit and other settlements that made it public) to get more material.
In the least, I think Matt might want to take the time to give a harmlessness-revealing interpretation of each of these quotes (and of some notorious past Microsoft deeds).
I don’t mean to be too rude or crude to Matt, but I do find it offensive for someone to try to sell me as “being safe” something likely to harm me or harm things I value. In the least, the seller will have to be on the receiving end of an extensive Q&A session with me to see if I may be relieved of some or all of my many nontrivial concerns. Anyone that avoids or fails such a test is not being serious or else honest with me.
I tend to get rude and crude when people are posed questions as above and avoid answering them at all or to any degree of satisfaction on my part. Sorry, but I have limited patience for false solutions and for problem-creation actions by others.
#25 by Dohn Joe on March 26, 2010 - 5:23 pm
Great little blog entry! What struck me as oh-so-true is your remarks about Linux users having chosen to break free of Microsoft technology…and that their technology “causes problems” (understatement of the year).
No crap! They’re just pulling their embrace-extend-extinguish garbage again and you know who suffers from the deliberate incompatibilities, lawsuits, and other BS? The end user – YOU and I
#26 by Dave Lane on March 27, 2010 - 6:33 am
Jason,
I’m a long-time Ubuntu user (and commercial support provider) but I’m also concerned by Matt Asay’s involvement in Canonical, as I’m not convinced of his position on Free Software which MS hates[1], but which I value hugely.
I greatly appreciate your support of RMS. I recently had the privilege of spending an entire day in his company, just him, his friend Dora, and me, driving into the Southern Alps here in New Zealand for a look around. I was initially ambivalent about the idea of spending a day with him, but I found RMS to be an extremely fair, thoughtful fellow. He may be lacking in socially graces (as are many who are somewhat higher on the autistic/geek spectrum than the norm) but he is *never* inconsistent or cruel. In fact, it is his uncompromising consistency, and desire to shape his life to allow him to live up to his principles that makes him, in my experience, beyond reproach. His ability to remain focused and unbending in the face of much irrational maligning from those whose practices don’t fit his vision is what has made the open source social movement possible. It is free software that makes OSS tick, and not those who are “expedient” and choose the “right tool for the job” (a euphemism for “compromising principles of freedom because, right now, it’s easier”).
Ubuntu has always embraced Free Software as opposed to being “open source”. I would be very disappointed if Mark’s Free software message was diluted by Matt’s open source focus.
Those who malign him, in *every case*, have either got their own barrow to push, or do not understand him. Or both.
[1] as opposed to Open Source, which, given the thin sliver of Open Source which is not also Free Software, but which MS can enjoy, namely BSD-style licensed software which it can appropriate in keeping with its proprietary business model a la Apple’s use of the Mach kernel
#27 by Jason on March 27, 2010 - 7:37 am
Dave,
Thank you very much for that!