PDA

View Full Version : Philosophy: Why Zealotry is Bad for Open-Source



Abaddon
February 12th, 2007, 06:16 AM
Just a few random thoughts that have been bumping around my head since starting with Ubuntu (and Linux in general) last year. Your mileage may vary.

I'm not a programmer or an electronic engineer, but I consider myself to be a fairly experienced computer user - I don't have any dramas fixing most software problems without outside assistance.

Why did I make the switch?

A few reasons:

1) I hate my computer treating me like it knows best.
2) My computer is getting long in the tooth, and Windows is grinding to a halt. My wife, who is a profound technophobe copes poorly with even the minor changes to her settings when I format and reinstall.
3) I have a healthy dislike for Microsoft products - not because I feel they are the evil empire, but just because they don't work for me as well as they should. Case in point, my Windows Mobile 5 PocketPC (bought this rather than a Palm because a program I use for work daily is PPC only) suffers the reminder bug - well documented, widely complained about and completely breaks the organiser functionality. Have microsoft fixed it yet? No.
4) Malware

If Windows wasn't so bloated and redundant, I'd be more than happy running it. If I didn't have to hack the registry to get programs to install somewhere different from where Microsoft thinks I should put them, then fine. If my damn PDA would ping to remind me about my appointments, I'd be delighted.

So I made the switch.

I've found Ubuntu much better - not perfect mind, but better. Particularly annoying:
* Still no control over where that .deb goes
* Some redundancy in the name of not breaking anyone's user experience (ie why do we need aptitude and apt-get - surely one of them can get the axe? Similarly vi/emacs etc etc - why not pick one as a standard and let people install the other if they want it? But no, we couldn't do that, that would be discouraging bloat.) I digress.


What annoys me is the flood of forum posts on the web, forums and anywhere else that proclaim Microsoft as the coming of Satan and closed-source software being the pestilence that will destroy us all.

IMHO, of course:

Fact: Microsoft do a very lazy job of writing bloated, slow software that treats users like idiots.
Fiction: They do this deliberately in a plan to kill all of your brain-cells

Fact: OpenDocument formats are better.
Probable Fact: Changing word document formats encourages people to upgrade
Fact: Microsoft are against ODF because they will lose money.
Fiction: Microsoft are on a mission to obfuscate information from the masses and are in cahoots with the Illuminati.

Case in point: No-word-attachments (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html)


I also recall seeing an article lurking on one of the Ubuntu pages discussing ways of informing users of the errors of their ways if they tried to open a proprietary media format (can't find it at the moment, sorry). Suggestions ranged from "This is a proprietary format. Have you thought about using an Open-source codec?" to "You are contributing to the decay in the fabric of the universe. If you don't immediately convert all your MP3s to OGG files, we will kidnap your wife and murder your children" (somewhat of an exaggeration, perhaps).

My short response to this is: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

The longer version is - pointing out to people how stupid they are is not a good way to get them on-side. We don't need to berate people for using Microsoft programs - we need to make the alternatives so good that there is no longer any reason to pay for them.

The fact of the matter is, in the short term Microsoft will remain the dominant force in our market. People will save their files in Word document, because that's the only thing their workplace computer will let them do. Getting people and places to use Open-Source is going to be a slow process.

Using software that you can peek at the code of is great for enthusiast hackers, but is irrelevant to the majority of computer users, and the warm-fuzzy from free software wont make up for having to use an inferior program (if it makes any difference at all) In order to get universal appeal, you need to focus on what all users want - not just the enthusiast set.

We need to chip away at that, but by bringing people onside - with good, free programs that do the job just-as-well-if-not-better. Pointing out how stupid they are achieves nothing except making us look like rabid fanatics preaching messages of doom from our soapboxes.

And what does that achieve?

kevinlyfellow
February 12th, 2007, 06:32 AM
Extremists have always come with social change. In fact, the purpose of a radical is to make the pragmatic people that have adopted the social change look good. For example:

Native American invasion of Alcatraz portrayed Native Americans as violent. After the invasion, many Native American nations gained land back from the US because the groups that had petitioned for it were peaceful.

This interplay may very well be a necessary part of change. Both RMS and Linus Torvalds are needed to assure proper advocacy of the open source revolution.

aysiu
February 12th, 2007, 06:34 AM
I agree with the OP.

If zealotry means we're very passionate and outspoken, that's fine. If it means, however, that we bash Windows and make fun of people (or call stupid those) who have difficulty with Linux or open source applications, then we're not doing any good for the adoption of open source.

Of course, there are many who do not care for the advancement of open source. They believe if you can't take the heat you shouldn't be in the kitchen. They believe Linux is for the elite and not for the masses. Should they ruin it for the rest of us who do want to have the use of Linux and open source grow? Well, I don't think there's much we can do to stop them, but we can offer alternative writings, opinions, attitudes, etc.

There's one thing in particular I feel hurts much of Linux-related open source, and it's a less offensive (but potentially far more dangerous) form of zealotry: overenthusiastic evangelism, especially the kind that doesn't acknowledge any shortcomings or potential difficulties.

That's why I wrote Is Ubuntu for You? (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=63315) If you hype Ubuntu or Linux or open source up too much, a lot of people will end up being disappointed. It's far better to admit up-front "Here are the difficulties you may face. You still want to give it a try?" and then help people when they ask for help.

pay
February 12th, 2007, 06:36 AM
* Still no control over where that .deb goesDo you want to control where it goes? It goes in a place so that other programs that depend on it for libraries can easily find it.

* Some redundancy in the name of not breaking anyone's user experience (ie why do we need aptitude and apt-get - surely one of them can get the axe? Similarly vi/emacs etc etc - why not pick one as a standard and let people install the other if they want it? But no, we couldn't do that, that would be discouraging bloat.) I digress.In my opinion, aptitude is better, but it is not as mature as apt-get so thats why I think that they have both options... either way they don't take up that much room, seriously.
The longer version is - pointing out to people how stupid they are is not a good way to get them on-side. We don't need to berate people for using Microsoft programs - we need to make the alternatives so good that there is no longer any reason to pay for them.Or the proprietary softwar becomes so restrictive that they can't really be used... Like DRM...

aysiu
February 12th, 2007, 06:53 AM
I've moved the Malcolm X discussion to its own thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=359447) so as to keep this thread on track.

bionnaki
February 12th, 2007, 07:05 AM
there's no need to be a "militant" linux user. I mean, that's absurd. sometimes I think you geeks spend too much time on your computer.

if you want linux to spread, just suggest it...but dont push it. show people there is an alternative...but let them make the choice.

kevinlyfellow
February 12th, 2007, 07:46 AM
there's no need to be a "militant" linux user. I mean, that's absurd. sometimes I think you geeks spend too much time on your computer.


In my opinion we have been seeing this happen. Something as simple as this post is suggesting there are two basic levels of users, zealots and non-zealots. It also is saying that there is a movement against the use of violently upholding the principles of free-software. But people in the free software foundation are constantly advocating only use of free-software. They make projects like gnash possible because of their need. But while they are waving their hands talking about who is moral and who is immoral, someone else, a pragmatist saying, "I know you can see the product, there's a lot of people talking about it. But don't listen to all this about morality, because frankly, we simply have better software."

And btw, by violently, I do not mean guns and knives.

aysiu
February 12th, 2007, 07:55 AM
Debates between what we're calling zealots and non-zealots (there may be a less offensive term than zealots, but I can't think of it right now) often come down to both parties not appreciating enough the diversity of Linux and open source.

I often hear FOSS purists saying "Linux doesn't care about getting more users" or "open source developers don't want to make things more user-friendly for the masses." I also hear others saying things like "We need Linux to be more user-friendly" or "We have to get more users and convert people from Windows."

I see both as extreme positions that need to appreciate the diversity of the Linux and open source communities. Linux is only a kernel. Open source is a broad term that encompasses various Free software licenses. There is a history of volunteering, community-building, and (whether aggressive or passive) elitism in the development of both Linux and open source, but to deny that there are people and companies involved with Linux/open source who want a bigger desktop marketshare and who are trying to make it more user-friendly for "the masses" is denying reality.

Debian is a volunteer project that is about creating a solid Linux distribution. It is not about making money or being "user-friendly." But Debian (or Gentoo or Slackware) is not Linux. It is one Linux distribution among many. You'd be a fool if you didn't think Mepis, PCLinuxOS, Linspire, SuSE, and (yes, it's true) Ubuntu were working toward gaining more desktop marketshare and becoming more user-friendly for the masses.

One group needs to recognize that those goals of mass adoption are valid and do exist, and the other group needs to recognize that not all in the community share those goals.

rai4shu2
February 12th, 2007, 08:07 AM
A lot of heated debates are instigated by people who sell their IP and see free open source alternatives as a threat to their survival, thus in their minds justifying *any* disruptive actions.

cowlip
February 12th, 2007, 08:16 AM
This interplay may very well be a necessary part of change. Both RMS and Linus Torvalds are needed to assure proper advocacy of the open source revolution.

RMS would hate it being called "open source" though ;)

saulgoode
February 12th, 2007, 08:34 AM
Aren't the zealots those who would evangelize Linux to the masses and have every Windows user convert? If so then, yes, zealotry is bad for open source.

deanlinkous
February 18th, 2007, 06:13 PM
can someone explain why we need 'mass adoption' ???

aretei
February 18th, 2007, 07:12 PM
maybe so that we (floss community) won't have to depend our computer uses on proprietary software and trust what our computer is doing. If masses adopt the floss software, things like DRM and hardware incompatibilities will naturally disappear and potentially gaming will be much better supported under floss community. Basically, what holds back people from switching to floss will go away and what we have will improve with a greater momentum.

aysiu
February 18th, 2007, 07:16 PM
Basically, what holds back people from switching to floss will go away and what we have will improve with a greater momentum. My guess is that deanlinkous doesn't care if people are held back from switching.

deanlinkous
February 18th, 2007, 07:45 PM
Who or what is holding them....
Let me see....looks that way........looks this way........yep it looks like companies and their proprietary formats and unfair tactics.
So why should we change free software into that very thing if that very thing is what made someone look for a alternative.
(example of how zealotry is GOOD for open source...err....free software)

Which is more zealous?
1)wanting everyone to switch and willing to do whatever in order to get them to switch
2)only wanting those to switch that truly want something different and not just a "better" windows

aysiu
February 18th, 2007, 07:47 PM
Which is more zealous?
1)wanting everyone to switch and willing to do whatever in order to get them to switch
2)only wanting those to switch that truly want something different and not just a "better" windows Once again with the false dichotomies, eh? Those aren't the only two options.

I'd like for more people to switch (not everyone), but I never want people to think Linux is Windows without problems. If we had more people switch (again, not everyone), then open formats and open source software would become standard (if not the standard). If only a small handful (as opposed to a large handful) of people use open source, then proprietary continues to dominate.

As I spelled out to you in another thread, a lot of people are like me--we switch to open source in phases. It's not all or nothing. Well, to you, it appears to be all or nothing, but not everyone thinks the way you do. I started Windows and all proprietary. Then I moved to Firefox. Then I moved to OpenOffice and Audacity. Eventually, I started using Ubuntu. It goes in stages oftentimes.

aretei
February 18th, 2007, 07:54 PM
Who or what is holding them....
Let me see....looks that way........looks this way........yep it looks like companies and their proprietary formats and unfair tactics.
So why should we change free software into that very thing if that very thing is what made someone look for a alternative.
(example of how zealotry is GOOD for open source...err....free software)

Which is more zealous?
1)wanting everyone to switch and willing to do whatever in order to get them to switch
2)only wanting those to switch that truly want something different and not just a "better" windows
Um, zealots attempting to persuade masses into floss must be seen as a helping hand to free them from restrictions of proprietary software. It is in that sense we must not be mistaken as those evil business practices done by corporations to the masses, and we have a greater consciousness toward this issue therefore, convincing masses to switch is in no way follows the steps of corporate business practices, for we're doing it for the good of the whole (except corporations).

macogw
February 18th, 2007, 07:55 PM
regarding apt-get v. aptitude, aptitude is actually a gui frontend for apt. try just typing "sudo aptitude" without telling it to do anything, you'll see. if you're not using as a gui, it has a different purpose: if you use it to install, it will bring in the "suggested" not just "required" (apt-get does just required) dependencies, and if you remove with aptitude something you installed with aptitude it will remove whatever was automatically installed, provided something else isn't using it. apt-get remove only removes that specific file. this has a purpose though! if a library was automatically installed, aptitude would remove it. if that libraries is being used by something you installed from source, that program from source stops working. so if you want to keep that library, remove the program that brought it in using apt-get remove and not by using aptitude remove

deanlinkous
February 18th, 2007, 07:56 PM
Those aren't the only two options.

I'd like for more people to switch (not everyone), but I never want people to think Linux is Windows without problems.
I didn't say there were only two.
I am often considered a zealot because I do not want people switching to free software without knowing that feature #1 is freedom and that outweighs any feature proprietary might have.
So mass adoption without recognizing Feature #1 is just a bunch of sheep following the herd and asking for proprietary to be a part of that is like asking for the wolf to come along - which is not a good thing when you are sheep. :D A group of sheep will never talk the wolf into being nice. Stop being sheep or at least be MEAN sheep and kick that wolf where it hurts.... get off that proprietary lock-in and abuse.

deanlinkous
February 18th, 2007, 08:00 PM
Um, zealots attempting to persuade masses into floss must be seen as a helping hand to free them from restrictions of proprietary software. It is in that sense we must not be mistaken as those evil business practices done by corporations to the masses, and we have a greater consciousness toward this issue therefore, convincing masses to switch is in no way follows the steps of corporate business practices, for we're doing it for the good of the whole (except for corporations).
Nicely stated! :) But only if the helping hand makes them understand that it is the hand of freedom and not just the free-cost hand or the proprietary mixed with free is okay hand....

aretei
February 18th, 2007, 08:05 PM
And that's what I exactly mean by a "helping hand" :)
I support free software movement over open source so I totally agree with you on that point. :KS

agurk
February 18th, 2007, 08:07 PM
Right deanlinkous, the goal was never to put Linux on the desktop, it was to have a free desktop and I agree it's important to keep that focus.

soulfly7x
February 18th, 2007, 08:23 PM
You want people to stop doing what they're used to doing, which is a formidable accomplishment. I understand the author's viewpoint. Generally speaking, you don't get people to change their behavior by insulting them. I think that was the main point here. I also think a lot of the follow up comments missed that point entirely.

deanlinkous
February 18th, 2007, 08:42 PM
If I say "your software sucks" then it isn't personal....

Pointing out how it is wrong to use proprietary formats is not insulting but informative.

Until people understand what is so "bad" about proprietary software then they will never realize what is so "good" about free software becasue feature #1 is freedom! Saying that users should want to use free software because it is functionally better is just a setup for running back to windows. Proprietary software will always be "better" because it uses unfair tactics to be "better" to keep you hooked on it. It always provides something you can only do with it and not with free software because that is how they keep you using it. Adobe flash is always going to be "better" because it will always roll out code changes to make sure gnash is one step behind and unable to play youtube. As soon as you realize that feature #1 of free software is the most important then everything else becomes secondary and you will never want to use any software that does not provide feature #1!

Keep wanting "better" and proprietary software will keep selling it to you.

How many try linux but "cannot" switch until openoffice does this, or firefox does that, or evince can handle this..... Free software will never be "good enough" because proprietary makes sure you "cannot" switch, makes sure that "free" is never good enough.

Feature #1 is the feature you should be looking for if you are making the switch to free software, otherwise why are you switching?