The Claim

One of the common claims of the Mono proponent is that distribution packagers are splitting Mono into ECMA and non-ECMA packages. Debian and/or Ubuntu are commonly held up as examples in this area.

This always seemed a questionable claim to me: for one thing, it’s not easy to determine exactly what bits go where, and to be frank who has the time to screw with that? Also, there are a host of technical considerations – what if they conflict somehow? Furthermore, how will users know which packages are “safe” or “unsafe”? And, as we have seen, all the Mono apps need “unsafe” stuff anyway – so why bother splitting things up?

Also, without being crass about things – I don’t think that most Mono proponents’ top priority is the safe/unsafe distinction. Generally, it seems to me, if you are supporting Mono, you are in for a penny in for a pound and not too concerned over nuance unless forced to discuss it by raging freetard zealots such as myself. We all have our special roles to play.

Enough setup — I thought I might check out a package and see if we can accept or reject the claim that some distribution packagers are splitting Mono into ECMA and non-ECMA pacakages.

The Exam

Now we do have some Debian packages like libmono-system-data2.0-cil and libmono-winforms2.0-cil, so a casual glance might suggest that there is some ECMA/non-ECMA division going on.

On that note, I took mscorlib.dll from the Debian package libmono-corlib2.0-cil (2.6.7-3). This is the “Core Library of Mono for CLI 2.0″, and as far as I can determine absolutely required for any Mono whatsoever on your system.

[jason@apollo 2.0]$ egrep -I -a -o 'S.y.s.t.e.m.............................' mscorlib.dll | sort | uniq
SystemSystem.Data1S
System Operators/BUI
System, Version=2.0.
System.Attribute.}e
System.Byte.!Value t
System.Char
           utf32QTh
System.Core, Version
System.Data, Version
System.Data.OleDb.Ol
System.Data.SqlClien
System.DateTimefile
System.DecimalCInval
System.Decimal.Parse
System.Design, Versi
System.Diagnostics.E
System.Diagnostics.P
System.DirectoryServ
System.DoubleUDouble
System.Drawing!Syste
System.Drawing, Vers
System.Drawing.Desig
System.Drawing.Print
System.Guid.CompareT
System.Int16ArraySu
System.Int16;Value i
System.Int32s%Value
System.Int64qInput s
System.Messaging, Ve
System.Messaging.Mes
System.Net.DnsPermis
System.Net.SocketPer
System.Net.WebPermis
System.NonSerialized
System.Reflection.As
System.Resources.Res
System.Resources.Run
System.Runtime.Compi
System.Runtime.Inter
System.RuntimeType)S
System.SByte.7Value
System.Security, Ver
System.Security.Cryp
System.Security.Perm
System.Security.Poli
System.Security.Supp
System.SerializableA
System.ServiceProces
System.Single.9Value
System.Text.CP5CodeP
System.Text.ENCCEnco
System.Type are not
System.UInt16.5Value
System.UInt32.Negat
System.UInt64.7Value
System.Web, Version=
System.Windows.Forms

What’s this!? System.Data? System.Drawing? System.Windows.Forms!?!

The Verification

So, it appears that there are non-ECMA bits even in the “most basic” Mono library. At this point, I was pretty sure we could reject the claim.

However, even in my freetarded factfinding frenzy I wanted to be sure, so I did something absolutely insane: I asked Jo Shields about it. (In case you don’t know, Mr. Shields packages Mono for Debian and Ubuntu.)

Mr. Shields was kind enough to respond, and here’s the summarized deal:

1. ECMA/non-ECMA is not a consideration in packaging Mono.
2. No distribution ships Mono with ECMA-only components.
3. It is not possible to do so without “deep surgery”.
4. Splitting along ECMA/non-ECMA lines is not a priority.

So, we can reject the claim that distribution packagers are splitting Mono into ECMA/non-ECMA components.

The Thank You

My sincere thanks to Jo for taking the time and effort to reply.

The Unredacted Email

At Mr. Shield’s suggestion, here is the unredacted email (which contains my original email), so everyone can get context and judge for themselves. I suggest reading it if you are interested in more about the packaging details behind Mono.

On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 14:43 +0900, Jason Melton wrote:
> Jo,
>
> Your favorite zealot here. I'd like to ask some questions on a Mono
> Packaging issue before I write a post about it. I want to do this so I
> have "asked someone in the know" as well as offer you an opportunity
> to respond if you desire in the post itself.
>
> If you want me to F off and not bother you again, I'll respect that, of course.

For actually asking me the question, I'm happy to answer fully. It's
more than Roy's ever done.

> Anyway, on to the questions:
>
> 1. Is the Debian Mono packaging split into ECMA / non-ECMA components?

It's split into a hundred odd packages, but no, ECMA/non-ECMA isn't a
consideration - the only consideration is minimizing dependency chains
whilst retaining usefulness (and reducing circular dependencies), and
grouping related items. As an example, a minimal install (mono-runtime
plus its dependencies) pulls in four library packages, containing the
following assemblies:

libmono-corlib2.0-cil:
mscorlib.dll

libmono-posix2.0-cil:
Mono.Posix.dll

libmono-security2.0-cil:
Mono.Security.dll

libmono-system2.0-cil:
System.Configuration.dll
CustomMarshalers.dll
System.Management.dll
System.Transactions.dll
System.Drawing.dll
System.Xml.Linq.dll
System.Xml.dll
System.Core.dll
System.Security.dll
System.dll
System.ServiceProcess.dll
System.Configuration.Install.dll

So these assemblies are the unavoidable minimums installed on a current
system (Ubuntu Maverick). But they cover most situations outside
compilation, where we pull in the kitchen sink in order to provide
simpler Build-Depends lines. And if you aren't aware, note that assembly
names do not necessarily match the namespaces provided therein. Whilst
it would be possible to chop things out of libmono-system2.0-cil to make
a pure-er (although likely not completely pure) minimal system, I think
the benefits to our users would be minimal, and the cost in terms of
awkwardness on upgrades high.

> 2. If there is a split is it an official policy?

See above

> 3. If there is a split is it comprehensive/complete or in
> progress/trying-our-best-but-not-100%-just-yet-for-whatever-reason?

See above-er

> 4. How could a non-packager determine which bits should go where and
> verify that the packaging is correct?

As I said, the concern is really just over minimizing chains of
dependencies, so what makes us sit up and make changes is cases where
pulling in an extra library leads to pulling in several more - that's a
scenario we want to avoid. As an example, when attempting to attack
Banshee with a scalpel (the changes noted in the current Natty package),
we found two instances where depending on a single library would pull in
buckets more random stuff. Using System.Data pulled in the
libmono-system-data2.0-cil package - but one of the rarely-used
assemblies in that package pulled in libmono-wcf3.0-cil and all ITS
dependencies, bloating things up. Our solution was to split the "bad"
assembly into a new package (will be in Mono 2.6.7-4), Banshee
upstream's solution was to drop System.Data entirely (already in the git
snapshot in Natty).

The other example is the Youtube extension using the google-gdata
packages (which contain about 14 assemblies for managing various Google
web services), one of which uses System.Web. Banshee upstream provided
us with a minimal patch to remove that dependency, by copying a little
of Mono's source code (GData upstream already did this to provide
missing namespaces on the Microsoft.NET Compact Framework, so we just
added one or two missing methods and removed the ifdef).
libmono-system-web2.0-cil suffers from a similar, but sadly unavoidable,
chain of dependencies which we sought to cut off. Due to obtuse Windows
line-ending issues, showing you the patch wouldn't be meaningful or
interesting.

So now Banshee's dependency list isn't much different from Tomboy or
gBrainy. See http://people.ubuntu.com/~hyperair/banshee-dep.png for the
visual version of the above.

> 5. When I examine mscorlib.dll I see references to non-ECMA components
> such as System.Data and System.Drawing. [1] Does this mean that
> mscorlib.dll (from the Debian package
> libmono-corlib2.0-cil_2.6.7-3_all.deb) contains non-ECMA components?

Congratulations for being the first Mono critic (AFAIK) to notice this.
I was going to blog on this topic at some point, once finishing my
current secret Project Marmoset.

You're correct. ECMA 335 defines HOLY SHIT. They updated it to .NET 4.0!
That's news to me that is! You'd have thought Miguel would have blogged
about it. Damn, now I need to restart Project Marmoset.

Sorry. Anyway, the currently MCP'd version of ECMA 335 (4th edition,
2006) defines 331 different classes, with 617 properties and 2097
methods, split across System.dll, mscorlib.dll, System.Xml.dll, and
System.Threading.Parallel.dll. Not every namespace in those assemblies
is defined in the ECMA spec - the spec covers individual methods and
properties on individual objects, each one needing vetting one by one by
the standards committee.

So the current (okay, not current, I'm on 2.6.7 here) Mono
implementations of the named libraries contain:

mscorlib.dll: 1085 classes, 13438 methods, 3213 properties.
System.dll: 822 classes, 8644 methods, 3109 properties.
System.Xml.dll: 240 classes, 5384 methods, 2158 proprties.

I should stress that I'm relying on grep for numbers here, so I don't
know how much autogenerated noise is included in the monodis output.
Probably plenty, but even with that it's clear that the implemented
methods & properties exceed the ECMA methods and properties. And no, I
don't know where System.Threading.Parallel.dll is either. And yes, I
know that the Community Promise needs everything in the spec to be
implemented. Go figure.

FYI, ECMA 335 5th edition increases the number of ratified classes from
331 to 374, properties from 617 to 651, and methods from 2097 to 2319.

> Obviously, I think that the package contains non-ECMA bits and want to
> point this out as a counter argument to those who say that Mono is
> split into "safe"/"unsafe" bits by distro packagers and often use
> Debian/Ubuntu as an example.

As far as I can tell, most people consider some technologies
more dubious than others - System.Windows.Forms or System.Data is
hairy, whereas a non-spec method on the String class doesn't make
everybody leap in fear. Whether that's naive is the topic for a
different flame war, I suspect.

So it's true that we have distinct packages for the "scary" bits like
System.Data versus "less scary" stuff like mscorlib.dll, but it is
absolutely true to say that no distribution ships a Mono framework with
ECMA-only components, and it's not possible to do so without deep
surgery on the class library, requiring a lot of man hours. Which is
time Miguel would rather get his guys to invest in MonoDroid or
MonoTouch. Completely hypothetically, I think using the monolinker tool
from MonoTouch (which creates custom minimized versions of the class
libraries on a per-app basis) to turn a "full" Mono into an ECMA-only
Mono would be a faster route to the stated goal, but I have no idea
what would run, and no idea whether monolinker would be prepared to
chop off that much stuff. Would sure be interesting though, wouldn't it?

> I'm trying to get your input so I can be sure of my facts and to
> present "the other side". It's the first time I've tried such a thing,
> so your response is much appreciated. If it helps I can send you a
> copy before I post it so you know I don't quote you out of context or
> anything shady like that.

Whilst I think we disagree pretty strongly about comparative risk, your
dedication towards accuracy in this matter is appreciated. I don't
think anything I've written here is incorrect, so I don't want you to
feel you need to provide me with your intended blog post in advance. If
I'm wrong, I'm sure corrections will appear in comments. And wrong or
right, people like gnufreex will call me Satan, so there's not much
advantage to advance copy.

I think the question of context would be best served by providing
readers access to all emails unredacted, so they (pro or anti Mono) can
form their own opinions on context.

> [1] Basically: egrep -I -a -o 'S.y.s.t.e.m....[lots of dots]...' mscorlib.dll

Try using "monodis", which decompiles .NET code to MSIL (or whatever
they're calling it today). A cursory examination suggests there are
mentions, but not dependencies. Stuff like InternalsVisibleTo, at a
guess, which gives those assemblies access to non-public content inside
mscorlib. I can't read MSIL, so I'm largely guessing. If there were a
true dependency, the packaging would pick up on it.

No biggie, actually

Mr. Asay’s departure isn’t really a big deal for Canonical or Ubuntu.

For one thing, Mr. Asay was a poor choice for Canonical – assuming Canonical wanted to take a pro-Free Software position and not another sure to fail Novell-like stance. I’m not the only one who thinks Mr. Asay’s hostility towards Free Software was a concern; Canonical and Ubuntu need more people – especially at the higher levels - who both understand and are respected by the larger Free Software community.

For another thing, whether it be time in position or philosophical difference (or whatever combination of those and perhaps other factors), Mr. Asay has had precious little impact on Canonical/Ubuntu. Even upon his leaving, neither he nor his boss points to even a single concrete achievement.

When Mr. Asay announced he was joining Canonical, I feared that he might influence Ubuntu. We are all better off that he did not.

Free Software makes Ubuntu possible 

I’ll get straight to the main point: I appreciate the emphasis Mr. Shuttleworth makes on Free Software in his post, especially in acknowledging GNU and other projects that make Ubuntu’s very existence possible. I like that he does not shy away from talking about Free Software. 

I hesitate to use the word “failing”, but a major issue I have with the Ubuntu community is the casual or occasionally hostile dismissal of Free Software philosophy. There is a very vocal segment of users flying under the Ubuntu banner that are extremely vocal and hostile to Free Software, especially when it comes to the FSF and Richard Stallman. 

I’m not talking about valid criticism or difference in philosophy either, I’m talking about people who personally attack rms and/or simply lie about the FSF (ala recent attempts to suggest the FSF supports software patents to attack non-GPL software [1][2]). 

I’m not sure how the Self-Loathing Free Software User gained traction in Ubuntu (or in any community for that matter), but it seems at odds with the messaging coming from Mr. Shuttleworth.   

Ubuntu as a standard-bearer 

Currently, Ubuntu is the both the most popular and most likely to be recommended distro for Linux newcomers. Whether or not it “deserves” this is largely irrelevant – it is what it is, and what it is is Ubuntu==Linux for a lot of people. 

Ubuntu has a responsibility – a debt, even - to acknowledge and respect the foundation that made it possible. That doesn’t mean Ubuntu can’t explore how to make its own mark (it’s doing that quite well I’d say) nor does it mean that Ubuntu can’t differ in philosophy or degree to any given figure in Free Software — it just means Ubuntu doesn’t need to engage in disrespect or ridicule directed at its own foundations. 

Now, I don’t think this disrespect is coming from the top down – Mr. Shuttleworth is often quite clear and articulate, but I do think it is fostered at a lower level, where people with a Anti-Free Software agenda can fly somewhere below the “Official Statement” radar, but still in the “Ubuntu Community” airspace. 

When Mr. Shuttleworth talks about “a project like Ubuntu needs constant care in order to defend its values” he is so very right. Consider the Ubuntu Philosophy in contrast with the very common “we care more about it just working than freedom” theme that runs through the Ubuntu Forums – often with someone saying something like “All the free software purists are off using Debian or Fedora. We use Ubuntu because we want our systems to work”[* - Just one example pulled at random.] 

umad or ujealous? 

Personally, I think a lot of the criticism Ubuntu gets on the “doesn’t contribute enough” front is based in simple jealously. Ubuntu is the “hot” distro, and for a variety of reasons some people don’t like that. 

It is simple, understandable human nature. People are jealous and petty creatures by nature, and do varying successful jobs of hiding it. 

It’s easy to see this in the areas people choose to beat up Ubuntu on – code contributions to GNOME or the kernel, as if Ubuntu has declared those projects unfit and the focus of their efforts or something. Preposterous. The whole point of building on top of something is so you can just use what’s there and focus your efforts on something else. 

The criticism is even more offensively absurd when it fails to account for the size and age of the entities being compared. 

Think on it for a moment: if Ubuntu concentrated on matching, say Red Hat’s contributions to the kernel, then who exactly is going to do the things that Ubuntu is doing that Red Hat is not? The whole damn purpose of the bazaar is so people can collaborate. Collaborate means you do this, while I do that. 

By the way: it’s not like Ubuntu has some “covenant” that is specific to Canonical, specifically excluding other platforms, distributions or software licenses.  If you like what Ubuntu is doing, take it and use it. If you don’t like it, then what do you care that it’s not being contributed upstream? 

Fail to see the problem here, and this whole line of criticism towards Ubuntu seems weak and petty. 

Keep Emphasizing Free 

I generally like what Mr. Shuttleworth has to say on Free Software, including this specific post under discussion. I just wish that same thoughtfulness permeated the larger community a bit. 

I grow weary of people using “Open Source” and “Free Software” as synonyms when they want to praise the benefits of Free Software, yet distinguishing the two when they disagree with the responsibilities or philosophy that makes those benefits possible. 

What I don’t agree about 

Of course, I can’t go without pointing out at least one thing is disagree with Mr. Shuttleworth about, lest people accuse me of being an unthinking Ubuntu fan-boy myself (believe it or not, I have been so accused more than once). 

Mr. Shuttleworth makes this questionable assertion: 

But still, if you *really* care about design in free software, the Canonical design team is the place to be. 

I think if you *really* care about design in Ubuntu, the Canonical design team is the place to be, but I honestly don’t see the Canonical design team as any exemplary team in Free Software, judged by either working methods or results. 

That’s not an entirely bad thing, mind you (and I certainly do not think it is malicious in any way) – they are turning out some very nifty things for Ubuntu indeed; it’s just the suggestion that there is some overarching “design in free software” going on that I’m not so ready to swallow.

Open to hearing different, though.

So it is with some interest I read “Give me a hand installing Ubuntu“, where a newcomer who wants to try out Ubuntu goes from:

All the cool kids are doing it! Everybody says it’s super-easy now and totally non-geeks can do it!

To:

Dear techies: Fuck you. Fuck you long, and fuck you hard. I don’t care if you have your own pet operating systems, okay? Have a great time with that. But when you go around evangelizing and telling everybody that your grandma and your mailman and your toy poodle should use Linux because it’s not like it used to be and it’s totally accessible? That is a bald-faced lie and you should be ashamed of yourselves. I wanted a little project. I didn’t want to waste ten hours of my life on something that still doesn’t work, on something that I would never have tried if I hadn’t been convinced that, hey, it’s totally easy these days! This is bullshit and you will never, never, ten years from now when maybe it really is accessible to the masses, get me to try your brand of Flavor-Ade again.

Ouch.

Anyway, we talked about this particular situation in general terms at the LUG last night, and here are some of my thoughts.

On Being Ready for the Desktop

One of the favorite talking points of Linux detractors is that while Linux might be great for techies and servers, it is most assuredly “not ready for the desktop”.

I think this misses the point; it’s not Linux that isn’t ready for the desktop: Users aren’t ready for the Desktop.

If you have ever had to support Windows users, you’ll quickly understand that people can’t make Windows do what they want either – even if they have training and support provided. They may have a handful of tasks committed to rote memorization, sure – but the slightest variation can throw a user into a panic.

And I am not being sarcastic or condescending - I have had to support Windows users that are professionals, well-educated and thinking people, but still can’t do tasks like burn files to a CD or even determine if a specific printer is installed (much less print to it) without personal intervention.

Is this a failing of Windows? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But Windows is no more “ready for the desktop” than Linux is – it is just that Windows has the advantage of a massive amount of tech support, training, user familiarization, and other 3rd party assistance that is only now slowly appearing on Linux.

On “Just wanting it work”

Another favorite rallying cry is that “The user just wants things to work”, often trotted out to defend some retarded-ass decision.

The statement might be somewhat true, but I question what exactly it justifies.

Consider: a consumer just wants shit to be cheap (if not free-of-charge). So, if you are a merchant and you want a lot of customers, then you better start giving away your goods. Oops! That might not be a very sustainable economic model.

A similar effect is at work in the Free Software ecosystem, except the economy there is driven on sharing and collaboration. If the only thing a user cares about is that the system works for them, then you are unlikely to get much useful sharing and collaboration out of that user.

This is oversimplified (most consumers care about more than just cheap shit, just like most users care about more than something “just working”), but I see a growing deference to the self-centered self-entitled immediate gratification attitude of “I just want something that works for me, right now, and with no effort on my part” as a long-term issue.

On being sold a bill of goods

Someone out there is promoting Ubuntu (or some other distro) as a magical one-click “it just works” OS. This is a fatally ignorant thing to do, because Ubuntu is not — nor is any other distro, nor is any other operating system, Free or Proprietary — perfect.

People are always going to have some sort of issue with their OS – expectation management is part of that process. A part of expectation management is to honestly let people know what awaits them.

On wanting it all and wanting it now

Another thing that is funny to me is how people expect something as complicated, powerful, and relatively new as an operating system to be trivial to master.

Even if you reduce the role of the computer to that of a tool (which is a popular trope, despite being ignorant in the extreme), consider what a powerful tool it is! Only the most simple tools are expected to be operated with no instruction or training.

You might pick up a hammer or wrench with no prior experience or without reading the manual, but even slightly more powerful tools, like say a vacuum cleaner or lawnmower, at least get a quick once over with the manual if only to figure out a minor point or two – and truly powerful tools might even require professional training and certification.

On thinking you can do anything

I play guitar, and from time to time run into people that either want lessons or feel the need to tell me how they are going to learn to play guitar too.

Here’s the thing about that: no one (with realistic expectations) expects to be able to pick up a guitar and just start playing it (unless they want to cover Nirvana! Heey-yooooo!) – and most people give up after a couple of days of cacophony and sore fingertips.

Most hobbies, hell most things worth doing, take some time and effort – some investment.

Imagine if someone came around ranting about how playing guitar was “bullshit” because it meant long hours sitting alone in the bedroom hunched over paper wearing headphones and they wanted to be a rock star right now!

I’m sad that the Ubuntu separatists have chosen this. However, I see it as there own loss. They do not have the benefit of the experience of non-Ubuntu users. I myself have helped Ubuntu-ers in the past to do very manual things, that solved there problems. They didn’t know how, or where to look because Ubuntu has not the documentation nor the community for these things.

This decision scares me as it set precedence that the other ‘fork-ers’ will be justified in destroying any unified question sites. Instead of SO we will likely see proposals for $language start to succeed. There also already more $distro proposals.

I’m disappointed that this was even left up to the community to decide, TBH, but such is ‘democracy’.

Ubuntu Separatists. Now there is a colorful term!

On a lark, I decided to check out the Ubuntu-only Stack Exchange. Here from the front page at the time I checked it, some of the questions that are most definitely Ubuntu-only:

• Alternative Desktop Managers
• bashrc or bash_profile?
• Which app can I use for easily annotating pictures, screenshots?
• What’s the Bitwise Tunnlier equivalent for Ubuntu?
• How can I find out if a process is CPU, Memory or Disk-bound?
• Automatically change resolution when connecting an external monitor, nvidia driver
• Linux Alternative to Photoshop or Paint.NET
• How do I modify my PATH so that the changes are available in every Terminal session
• change directory (cd) but by replacing a part of the path only
• What precautions should I take when exposing my Ubuntu desktop directly to the internet?

and so on and so forth.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the questions have nothing at all to do with anything at all Ubuntu-specific.

What’s amazing (to me at least) is that if you stroll over to the “generic” Unix and Linux Stack Exchange you might see questions like:

• Which steps I have to follow to configure Ubuntu server with mac and windows workstations?
• Ubuntu remap script for UK Logitech Cordless Wave Keyboard
• How to fix Choppy Video Playback in Ubuntu?
• How can I make ubuntu UI uniformly use bash keyboard shortcuts?
• Ubuntu – How do you free up resources?

Shameful. What is the purpose of specifically demanding your own separate and personalized site and then garbaging up the more inclusive site with Ubuntu-specific questions? It strikes me as tone-deaf, arrogant and just plain rude in its sense of entitlement.

I don’t understand the Ubuntu fanboi mentality to place Ubuntu apart from the underlying ecosystem that makes it possible. I’m not sure if Canonical encourages this behavior by downplaying how much they borrow (roughly 99%) and up-playing how much they create (roughly 1%) in an Ubuntu distribution, or if it is a side effect of the over-hyped rah-rah “OMG EVERYTHING TO DO WITH UBUNTU IS SO FREAKING AWESOME” cheerleading that permeates Ubuntu-land? 

I’m not sure how you can set up Ubuntu as a good community member while at the same time demand that other people drink from a different water fountain, but I guess we are going to see it attempted.

Mr. Humphrey’s particular post is so chock-full of ignorance that it deserves a proper dissection.

Let’s begin!

[Edited to Add: Mr. Humphrey has since posted an apology.]

Step One: Mischaracterize and dehumanize the opposition

Mr. Humphrey leads off with the old tried-and-true one-two punch of the anti-Free Software crowd: first, stereotype your opposition and second, blame them alone for all failings.

Stereotype. “Extremist diehard Linux geeks” - according to Mr. Humphries – refer to Linux as “GNU/Linux”, use the terminal window, and only exercise once a year by walking their dog.

So we have – in reverse order:

• attacking people based on their physical habits and/or appearance (anti-Free Software people simply adore pointing out flaws that are in no way whatsoever relevant to the subject at hand),
• attacking the way people work (despite of the fact that if you know how to use the command line it is vastly more efficient than a gui in many, if not most, situations)
• attacking the way people speak (note that Mr. Humphrey doesn’t even raise the canard about people “forcing” other to say “GNU/Linux”, he won’t even stand for those who say it at all)

Here’s the important point – and it must be important because it’s right there at the start: these are not “normal” people:

The simple fact is that everyone on the “other” side of the chasm, you know, normal people, don’t care about freedom so much.

People that care about freedom are not “normal”. What are they then? Abnormal? Deviants? Zealots? It matters not, because the important thing to remember is they are not normal – and since they aren’t you can lie about them, you can misrepresent them, and you can ridicule them. Because you are “normal”, and they are not.

This is Step One.

Step Two: Blame them for “the problem”

These people are ruining free software’s chance to ever become mainstream and they’re annoying as hell.

It is “these people” that are “the problem”.

• It is not proprietary software companies that have massive resources to lie about Free Software.
• It is not legitimate difficulty in breaking into an already saturated market.
• It is not inherent challenges with marshalling diverse and largely volunteer resources.
• It is not a difference of opinion on what the actual “goal” or “problem” is.
• It is not a combination of all these things and many many more…

No, it is these people, these abnormal people – not like you or I! - that are the problem.

This is Step Two.

Step Three: Blather on about anything you like because any one still taking you seriously must be a total moron and so will accept literally anything you say

If you’ve made it this far, anything you say will be alright. If your target audience is willing to overlook (or even embrace) steps one and two, they are all yours!

This is where you can get some good stuff going!

You could explain that since it’s popular, slave labor is A-OK and quite similar to genetically enhancing fruit as well!

 Check out this reasoning by Mr. Humphrey:

1. The “worst kind” of people are those “who refuse to use Twitter, Facebook, or even any Google product due to privacy concerns”.
2. But! “Look at how many people use Facebook or Twitter”.  That’s because “their friends use it” and “it’s cheap”.
3. Which is “exactly the same thing” as “clothing manufacturers who utilize slave labor”.
4. “or companies that genetically enhance vegetables and fruit”

Nonsense. Absolute drivel. What the hell sort of argument is that?

Is it a defense of slave labor to justify it because it’s popular and cheap? That’s the argument made here. Inane drivel.

Step Four: Dig deeper

Listen if you’re going to let it all hang out, then let it all hang out! Now is the time to release every fallacious argument you can. Remember, if someone is still taking you seriously, you can literally say anything and they will support it.

For example, you can further misrepresent the opposition:

I also dual boot with Windows 7 because I use Photoshop for design. Does that make me a bad person?

Of course, you won’t need to show that anyone has actually called you a “bad person” – and you can misrepresent the point that perhaps designers should be dogfooding as a personal attack! It’s two for the price of one!

Or, you could be (deliberately?) obtuse:

Do you really, really believe that Android is in widespread use because it was marketed as being free as in speech?! No, of course not! It’s mainstream because it works, looks good, and offers consumers a choice other than what Apple has on offer at a cheaper price.

This way you can ignore the point that it is because large portions of Android are free as in speech that Android works, looks good, and offers consumers a choice other than what Apple has on offer at a cheaper price.

You can also further misrepresent the opposition by pretending they are going around saying “Android is winning because it is marketed as free as in speech!” Who is making that argument?

Just because marketing doesn’t think “free as in speech” makes an effective selling point doesn’t mean it isn’t important. Companies use all sorts of hoo-doo to market products. Sometimes they “pull the curtain back” a bit and talk about manufacturing details to impress customers, sometimes they don’t.

It depends on how they want to market things, but it doesn’t change how important the manufacturing process is. Judging the manufacturing process by the marketing message is truly ignorant.

Step Five: Keep digging

Don’t stop now!

You could flip the entire community on its head:

If the product benefits as an end result, who’s complaining other than this small vocal minority who put off the rest of us? The worst thing is that this minority is usually the same people who are in a position of responsibility or decision-making.

One of the major, major, points in Open Source development is that of a meritocracy. In fact, a favorite tactic of Open Source proponents is to immediately shut down any criticism by asking something like “Well, what exactly have you contributed?”

But here, Mr. Humphrey is upset that “the opposition” is in a position of responsibility or decision-making!

If they are so damn harmful to the project’s success, then how did they get there? How do they stay there? How did the project become successful at all in the first place with such bad people at the helm?

Step Six: Don’t acknowledge the elephant in the room

If you read about these wide internets, you might see some comments along the lines of “Mr. Humphrey has a point, he just made it poorly”.

I agree, there is an underlying point, but it has nothing to do with the philosophical differences of Free Software and Open Source, or even finding the best way to promote a project.

Here’s Mr. Humphrey’s point: I don’t like people that think differently.

That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

It’s not surprising because no one likes hearing a conflicting opinion – feels like we are being told we are wrong, and no one likes to be wrong. (God forbid if someone comes out and actually tells you “You’re wrong!”).

That’s human emotion, natural and understandable.

The thing is, intellectually we should be able to suppress that annoyance, listen to an argument and re-evaluate our opinions. That happens sometimes, but more often than not, a person will tie themselves into knots to ignore a contrary opinion.

Step Seven: Reader participation

Out of mercy and the length of this post, I’ll stop here – but there are several other fallacious and irrational threads I didn’t pick out. (xkcd comics, vegetarians and religious folks lumped in with “extreme views”, Ubuntu being Free Software is “nothing but a bonus”, “fail to see free software taking off on principle alone”, and so so much more)

Add some in the comments if you like!

Something worth discussing?

Listen, there is a valuable and needed discussion to be made on how to best promote Free Software, Open Source, GNU/Linux and all that to different targets.

There’s also interesting ground to plow in how much marketing should influence development.

And, there’s the always nifty question of what “winning” means.

All of the above will have different answers depending on whose asking: a project like KDE has different concerns than a project like Ardour.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I’d argue that suggesting there is one set of “right answers” for everyone – and the inverse of identifying the “worst kind” - show a lack of understanding of difference and nuance; suggesting the One True Way or the One Worst Thing is the exact sort of black-and-white thinking one might accuse zealots of engaging in.

I hope that these questions are what Mr. Humphrey was trying to raise, and I really hope that those who “agree with much of it” are reading between the lines to find.

They must be reading between the lines, because there is no rational argument from Mr. Humphrey.

Often it’s something I don’t agree with —  which if I then comment about I am taken to task by Ubuntards who regard the slightest deviation from official dogma as unacceptable — but in this case I’d like to point out a couple of bits of recent Ubuntu news that I actually like:

Ubuntu Assurance

Canonical has a Ubuntu Advantage Assurance program that will “take care of intellectual property (IP) infringement legal claims brought against customers in their use of Ubuntu”.

So long as Mark Shuttleworth sticks to his guns and recognizes Microsofts “IP claims” as “racketeering”, this program is a good thing.

It shows that Canonical is willing to put money on the line that Linux users need not worry about Microsoft’s IP FUD, and stands in stark contrast to Microsoft collaborators like Novell who strike secretive deals and then leverage Microsoft FUD against other Linux distributions.

There is a dangerous side here, because this program is only good so long as it operates without any sort of agreement with Microsoft. I expect we will see Microsoft come after this program from a couple of different angles as Canonical increases its corporate presence.

Out, damn’d F-Spot! Out, I say!

Word on the street is F-Spot is out and Shotwell is in for the next release of Ubuntu.

It’s always been obvious to me that the so-called “best-of-breed” Mono apps were anything but, and it’s nice to see that Team Apologista spin isn’t getting the job done any longer.

It’s always struck me as seventeen kinds of absurd that a simple note-taking application can justify bringing in a huge run-time framework – and the after-the-fact rationaliztion of adding more Mono apps “since we’ve already paid the price” was a PR dance worthy of Team Apologista’s Redmond Puppet Masters.

Of course, Mono infestation is not purely an Ubuntu problem – GNOME has deep shame staining its hands in this matter as well – but because Team Apologista has targeted Ubuntu so hard, it’s significant -and encouraging – to see their efforts fail.