hate it when Torvalds and Stallman are at odds
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jimf Jul 28, 2006 5:20 PM EDT |
I always hate it when Torvalds and Stallman are at odds. Both of these guys have the ear of the Linux community, and both have important things to say regarding the direction of Linux development. Perhaps it's because Torvalds thinks more like an Engineer, or perhaps it's because Stallman still comes close to zealotry at times, or perhaps it's just because Linus has a better sense of humor, but, I tend to give Torvalds my first attention. In any case it is apparent that Torvalds hasn't been thrilled with the new GPL3 from the get-go, and I find myself agreeing with much of what he has to say. I also continue to question that GPL3 is really much of an improvement over GPL2, or whether it is just Stallman's passion being pushed to the nth degree. I also keep hearing that the 'committees' is remaining pretty closed minded (Linus isn't the only one noting that)... not a good sign. Using the principal that in good design, 'more is less',(more popularly known as KISS) GPL3 is nether less convoluted nor more descriptive. |
| grouch Jul 28, 2006 5:45 PM EDT |
GPL3 is an improvement. It handles the differences in international laws better and it answers 'tivoisation'. Torvalds' specialty is code. It would be a bit much to expect him to be an international lawyer and an expert in all issues affecting computer users' freedom. Stallman insists on GPL3 being focused on and limited to the same issues that GPL2 has addressed. Recognizing that he can't see all ramifications, he has invited and enlisted the help of the world. Don't get taken in by yellow press. If it would generate clicks, I'm sure reporters would be asking Torvalds his opinion of the social ramifications of the BMW which nearly suffocated that diplomat because it runs MS Windows. |
| dinotrac Jul 28, 2006 8:24 PM EDT |
grouch: Join the real world Old man, or at least make a tiny stab at honesty. Torvalds' specialty is code the way Stallman's is. In case you've forgotten, Stallman started with code and branched out. Same is true for Torvalds. Stallman went all evangelical and philosophical, Torvalds went all organizational and practical. The truth is that both are far more than coders. In fact, at this point, code might be the smallest contribution of each to free software. |
| grouch Jul 28, 2006 8:31 PM EDT |
dinotrac: You keep calling me a liar. I do not appreciate that at all. If you can't debate without such ad hominem attacks, perhaps you shouldn't attempt debating at all. Torvalds works with code daily, in case you didn't notice. Stallman has said, repeatedly, for several years, that he does not. As for Stallman going "all evangelical and philosophical", if he hadn't there wouldn't have been a Linux kernel. Torvalds' "all organizational and practical" works within the confines of the kernel, but does not work against the legal threats poised against free software. |
| dinotrac Jul 28, 2006 8:56 PM EDT |
grouch - I say you are being dishonest. Take that as you will. There are many ways to be dishonest and lying is only one of them. Stallman does not work code daily, but he used to. Let us not forget that Stallman is years older than Torvalds. As to not working against legal threats to free software, I think you could take his criticism of GPL v3 as doing exactly that. Not all threats come from the enemy. |
| grouch Jul 28, 2006 9:03 PM EDT |
dinotrac: Show me the dishonesty, either in this thread or in the other one in which you called me dishonest. I don't care how you choose to split hairs, but I do care about slander. |
| dinotrac Jul 28, 2006 9:12 PM EDT |
Grouch: If you think I am slandering you, please feel free to sue me. You will lose because I am doing no such thing. As to dishonesty, you attempt to belittle Torvalds' contributions to free software by brushing him aside as some mere coder. He is nothing of the sort. Were that the case, Linux would not be what it is today. |
| jimf Jul 28, 2006 9:21 PM EDT |
> Join the real world Old man, or at least make a tiny stab at honesty. Get real dino, you don't agree with the man, so you call him a liar? And Torvalds is now the enemy of the GPL because he questions aspects of GPL3.... unbelieveable. Stallman has the upper hand in GPL3. It's going to happen, but, that doesn't mean that others shouldn't have an opinion, or need to keep their mouth shut. |
| grouch Jul 28, 2006 9:27 PM EDT |
dinotrac: Please be advised that I am in fact investigating a defamation of character suit under Texas law. >"As to dishonesty, you attempt to belittle Torvalds' contributions to free software by brushing him aside as some mere coder. He is nothing of the sort. Were that the case, Linux would not be what it is today." That is false, as my words above show. Nowhere do I belittle Torvalds' contributions. I stated, Quoting: Torvalds' specialty is code. It would be a bit much to expect him to be an international lawyer and an expert in all issues affecting computer users' freedom. I meant exactly what I said. He is not an international lawyer. Ask him. His opinion of GPL3 must be taken in the context of his expertise, which is in programming code, not law. Stallman is also not a lawyer. That is why I stated, Quoting: Recognizing that he can't see all ramifications, he has invited and enlisted the help of the world. I have belittled neither man's contributions to free software. I have brushed aside neither man as "mere" anything. Your accusation is personal, vicious and hurtful. Unless and until you apologize for this attack, I have nothing more to say to you. |
| dcparris Jul 28, 2006 11:05 PM EDT |
O.k. you two, kiss and make up. If you don't, I'll make both of you watch Steve ballmer videos until you do. Then I'll let Tuxchick decide what to do next. I know, I know... I'm mean as a snake in the grass. Oh well. Grouch, I don't think dino was attempting to call you a liar. His point was more along the lines of being honest with yourself, so to speak. That said, he might try a taste of his own medicine. His attempt to somehow paint LT as somehow practical ignores the very practical nature of philosophy. It is possible to "go all scholarly" with philosophy, but philosophy is inherently practical. Otherwise it's utterly useless. Everyone who disagreewith RMS attempts to paint him as some kind of pie in the sky fanatic. Unfortunately, few, including Stallman's detractors, are willing to stand up for their own confounded freedom. Without RMS waxing scholarly on the practical issues of technological philosophy, we would have all gone down the road to IP hell by now. I know that, while I hated it, I was still accepting the status quo, rather than attempting to buck it. Thanks to RMS, I am much freer than many of my fellow Americans. It doesn't get anymore practical than that. The US Constitution is established upon a set of beliefs. That is, it is an expression of fundamental ideas/values. Those values are moral judgements. Likewise, the GNU GPL is an expression of moral values. Without the moral values to undergird either of these two documents, both become moot. |
| sbergman27 Jul 28, 2006 11:38 PM EDT |
"""As to not working against legal threats to free software, I think you could take his criticism of GPL v3 as doing exactly that. Not all threats come from the enemy.""" There is so very much truth in this statement. Some RMS fans prefer to dismiss Torvalds as not "getting it" or not understanding freedom. Torvalds understands perfectly. He actually has a better grasp of the word 'freedom' than RMS does. And he understands the DRM restrictions in the drafts of GPLv3. He simply does not agree that those restrictions are appropriate. I don't really trust RMS to do the right thing with GPLv3, but he's set himself up as God^Wthe one who makes the decisions as to what goes into it. The year of public debate is mostly ceremonial. Indeed, not all threats come from the enemy. |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 3:01 AM EDT |
Rev - I certainly wasn't trying to call anybody a liar, unless grouch is a pseudonym for Steve Ballmer -- in which case, perhaps, I should have. Uh oh!!! Let's see, got the "unless" in there, it's clear I'm making a hypothetical point. Ok...I'm fine. Whew!! It's one thing to argue for intellectual honesty, but...saying a free software type is actually Steve Ballmer --- now THAT would be defamation. As to going all scholarly, I agree that philosophy is a practical thing. By the same token, practitioners may embody philosophical teachings while finding the degree of imperfect human give and take -- corruption, if you will -- that takes the idea and lets it survive the darker realities of everyday life. Stallman, in his practical days, wrote code, sold tapes. In fact, the whole philosophical crusade started with a buggy printer driver that he wished he had the code to fix. Torvalds, in his philosophical effects, selected the GPL for Linux, devised the -- radical, if you think about it in terms of the time, of developing an OS, and of surrendering tight control of your own IP -- notion of release early, release often --- and release to the whole freakin' world. Cathedral vs bazaar? Linux is like a whole bazaar of bazaars. |
| r_a_trip Jul 29, 2006 5:49 AM EDT |
"Torvalds, in his philosophical effects, selected the GPL for Linux, devised the -- radical, if you think about it in terms of the time, of developing an OS, and of surrendering tight control of your own IP -- notion of release early, release often --- and release to the whole freakin' world." Dinotrac, can you define what an OS is? I see you mention Linux, but do you mean the kernel initially started by Torvalds or do you mean Torvalds baby plus all the tools pulled in to make Linux the kernel useful? Tools not written by Torvalds or his kernel devs. Linus was at the right place, at the right time and he capitalized on the misguided stubbornness of Stallman of wanting academic excellence in the GNU kernel. The choice of a microkernel design for the HURD was the opportunity that made the Linux kernel top dog. If Stallman would have been pragmatic with GNU, he would just have forked a BSD kernel and relicensed it under the GPL. In which case Linux might not have made the splash it did. Torvalds has delivered the missing piece and the piece he delivered is of phenomenal quality, but it doesn't take away the fact that his piece would be next to nothing without the GNU toolchain, written by Stallman's crew. The problem with the GPL V3 is that Stallman sees the danger of the end-run set in by the "Powers That Be" to lock down hardware so they can regain total control, but Stallman is using a kludge to try and stop it. Torvalds has spotted the kludge, but doesn't see that the kludge is a misguided attempt to keep their good FOSS thing going. Torvalds approach is ignoring the "Elephant in the Room", but that won't cut it either. What if the MS-Intel PC design spec 2008 makes Trusted Computing mandatory? What if you have to get your binaries signed by the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance before they run on a TCP system? Then you have the source, but your whole PC is a TiVo. It might not happen, but my gut feeling and general mistrust in the human kind says that hunger for power and money will screw up open systems. Linus' defense of "Don't buy those systems." might mean getting out of computing in a few years or running a signed and "Tivo'ized" travesty of FOSS on your system. Torvalds may be right that the anti-DRM clause is not the way to stop the coup that is underway to wrest our control from our systems, but I don't see how Linus' laissez-faire approach will stop the technological threat either. Stallman may be using the wrong tool, but at least he is doing something against the encroachment on our computing Freedom. |
| jdixon Jul 29, 2006 5:49 AM EDT |
Dino: > Join the real world Old man, or at least make a tiny stab at honesty. I submit that the above line does in fact insinuate that Grouch is lying. Now, having read your posts as long as I have, I don't think that's actually what you meant. I think you meant that he was somewhat out of touch with the reality of the situation. But that's interpetation. The actual definitions of the terms indicate otherwise. Given that, unless you really meant that Grouch was "deliberately" stating falsehoods, I think you should apologize. Rembember, if Grouch is stating the facts as he understands them, but is wrong, he's not lying, merely mistaken. Also remember that it's possible for two honest people to look at a given situation and come away with two completely different viewpoints. Sorry situation, that, but unfortunately true. Given this, it's usually better to give the person you're debating the benefit of a doubt whenever possible (well, maybe not Steve Ballmer). Grouch: Hey, what happened to your thick skin? Surely your snails can handle this without resorting to legalities. The snails of justice move slowly, but with great precision, and their tracks are there for all to see. |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 6:32 AM EDT |
jdixon - You've got it backwards. I would owe grouch an apology if I did mean that we was lying. I was not calling grouch a liar. He is the one who said that, not me. When he made that accusation, I clarified my position so that he and everyone else be sure that was the case. I owe nobody an apology. I do believe that grouch is being intellectually dishonest in his dismissal of Linus's contributions. Think about all of the great coders in the world. Think about all of the free software projects there are. How many have reached the status of Linux? Even something as universally accepted as apache falls short of the stature of Linux. For that matter, think of the BSDs, OS's every bit on a par with Linux, but no Linus. |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 6:46 AM EDT |
>Dinotrac, can you define what an OS is? Has nothing to do with the conversation. As to the GNU toolchain, it's nice to have. The whole "gosh it's only a kernel" argument is yet another attempt to diminish the things Torvalds have done. One could just as easily say "it's only a toolset". I suppose, to be accurate, one would have to say "It's only a portion of a total toolset." Not that any of it matters. Who would want to live without the GNU tools? Heck, I've used them on Windows, AIX, Solaris, FreeBSD, HP/UX, and OSF/1. They're great. So, query me this -- if we're actually trying to be honest an promote free software -- Why does the great work Stallman, the FSF, and assorted friends have to mean that Linus hasn't done equally wonderful stuff? You mentioned that Stallman could have bundled the BSD kernel with the GNU tools...and I think you're on point. He could have...but didn't. Stallman -- or, at least, a differently gifted version of Stallman -- could have sired the birth of a true GNU OS and helped it to grow the way Linux has. The thing is -- he didn't. The truth is -- he couldn't. He excels at being Stallman and doing the Stallman things. Torvalds is not the anti-Stallman, but that cliche love story line -- "You complete me". Stallman is what Torvalds isn't. Torvalds is what Stallman isn't. Perhaps the thing that has RMS riled up is not exactly jealousy, but a realization that he needs a Linus in his world, somebody to do and be the things that he can't do an be. It should be a liberating thing for him: It frees him to do and be what he is meant to do and be. Same for Linus. He is not the right sort to carry the ideological torch -- though I know him to be well versed in the subject. He is the "get it done" guy. There's plenty of room for both. Both are important. No need to look down anybody's nose anywhere. |
| jdixon Jul 29, 2006 6:52 AM EDT |
Dino: > I would owe grouch an apology if I did mean that we was lying. I quoted the line which I think calls him a liar. As I said, I don't think that's what you meant, but it is what you said. That's why I think you should apologize. Taking you at your word, you made a statement which could easily be construed to mean something you didn't in fact mean. That's a mistake on your part, and IMNSHO, deserving of an explanation/apology. Admittedly, it's also not that hard to take it the way I took it, and grouch appears to be being rather thin-skinned today; but an apology would be the polite thing to do, since he obviously did take it the wrong way. However, that's finally your call, not mine. I think I've made my point more than enough, and I wouldn't want to insult you by being overly pushy. :) |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 8:07 AM EDT |
jdixon - I certainly meant grouch no disrespect and am sorry that he took my statements that way. Free speech requires a certain sensitivity and civility. At the same time, it requires a certain tolerance and skin depth. Sometimes people mistake bluntness for incivility. It is not the same time. Sometime you have to say hard things. If you can't speak bluntly, you can't speak freely. |
| dek Jul 29, 2006 8:16 AM EDT |
Dino and Grouch: I'm sorry but I've *got* to chime in here: Dino: When you say: "Join the real world Old man, or at least make a tiny stab at honesty." it feels to me like you are (rather flippantly) implying that he is, in fact, being at least intellectually dishonest. Now, whether that equates to lying or simply to lack of honesty with one's self is a judgement call. I'm going to leave that issue there. Grouch: I hope you understand that distinction as well. There are other ways to take that statement that don't accuse you of out and out lying. If he would have said "I think you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself and here's why." would you have had as much of a problem with that? Granted, what he said was a little flip but you two have interacted with each other long enough that He probably feels that he can get away with being flip. I have enjoyed reading both of your posts and I hope to continue to do that in the future. FOSS (and the LXer community) needs people like the both of you just like we need Torvalds and Stallman. I wish both of you well. Don K. |
| jimf Jul 29, 2006 9:04 AM EDT |
dino, First you say to grouch: > Join the real world Old man, or at least make a tiny stab at honesty Now maybe that's not outright calling him a liar, but it sure questions his integrity. > I say you are being dishonest. Take that as you will. There are many ways to be dishonest and lying is only one of them. So what is he, a liar of just dishonest? Ether way, you just insulted the man. > As to dishonesty, you attempt to belittle Torvalds' contributions to free software by brushing him aside as some mere coder. He is nothing of the sort. Were that the case, Linux would not be what it is today. Well, I don't see he 'belittled' Torvalds, but in any case that would be an honest opinion, and, hardly 'dishonest'. So I guess, you just think he is dishonest, and, not a liar? Come on dino, no matter how you spin it, you owe grouch an apology. A man's honesty and integrity is nothing to play with and it's obvious that really hurt him. If you did that to me, I'd sure want an apology. |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 9:06 AM EDT |
dek - Yes and yes. As I've outline above, I was indeed referring to intellectual dishonesty. And yes, I was working from the assumption that grouch is familiar with my posting style -- we have certainly interacted more than once -- and a little flip familiarity was ok. |
| r_a_trip Jul 29, 2006 9:35 AM EDT |
>Dinotrac, can you define what an OS is? Has nothing to do with the conversation. Depends. Most of the time Linux is used to denote a complete distribution and that glosses over the fact that there are more independent projects providing equally important parts than just the spider in the web. Linux the kernel is important, but not the only part that makes the magic happen. As to the GNU toolchain, it's nice to have. Yes it is and we could replace it with a BSD toolchain, still it is a very valuable asset to keep around. The whole "gosh it's only a kernel" argument is yet another attempt to diminish the things Torvalds have done. One could just as easily say "it's only a toolset". I suppose, to be accurate, one would have to say "It's only a portion of a total toolset." In one way it is just a kernel, in another it is a piece of software I love to use above any other kernel. I'm not discounting the fact that Linux is a very performant, broadly usable piece of technology. Without it, a lot of wonderful things wouldn't be happening. Not that any of it matters. There I disagree. All pieces of FOSS matter. They mean the difference between being shackled or Free to go about your business. Who would want to live without the GNU tools? I could think of a few proprietary interests who would cheer if it went the way of the Dodo. At least license wise... Heck, I've used them on Windows, AIX, Solaris, FreeBSD, HP/UX, and OSF/1. They're great. Not arguing here. So, query me this -- if we're actually trying to be honest an promote free software -- Why does the great work Stallman, the FSF, and assorted friends have to mean that Linus hasn't done equally wonderful stuff? Well, that is the point. The FSF stuff and Linus' kernel are amazing achievements, but usually the FSF stuff is taken for granted and all attention goes to Linux, which is wonderful but one star amongst many in the FOSS galaxy. You mentioned that Stallman could have bundled the BSD kernel with the GNU tools...and I think you're on point. He could have...but didn't. Nope and this oversight in Stallmans grand vision gave Linus the chance to fill this gap. I'm not complaining. Stallman -- or, at least, a differently gifted version of Stallman -- could have sired the birth of a true GNU OS and helped it to grow the way Linux has. Now you are discounting Stallmans efforts. Stallman may be annoyingly unbending on the GPL and Free Software, but he has been a binding political force withing the GNU/Linux ecosphere, just as Linus way of developing and pushing Linux technology has been a huge non-political and technological enabler. GNU (including Gnome), X.org, KDE, Linux (kernel), would probably be very different if Stallman hadn't been around. The thing is -- he didn't. The truth is -- he couldn't. He excels at being Stallman and doing the Stallman things. Which is good. We need an incorruptible crusader. He keeps the ideas behind a lot of stuff clean. Torvalds is not the anti-Stallman, but that cliche love story line -- "You complete me". Stallman is what Torvalds isn't. Torvalds is what Stallman isn't. I'm not suggesting that Torvalds is the the anti-Stallman. Perhaps the thing that has RMS riled up is not exactly jealousy, but a realization that he needs a Linus in his world, somebody to do and be the things that he can't do an be. I assume that Stallman knows that Linus was right in his approach to developing the kernel and secretly Stallman even might be glad somebody had the balls to give the world a working monolithic kernel in direct defiance of the microkernel fad of the time. Stallman is riled up, because Open Source is a way of toning down idealism. It might mean that nobody is going to go the Free route if a proprietary piece already does what everybody wants. Just extrapolate that line and see why Stallman thinks it's horrid. With that line of thinking, we simply wouldn't have a need for GNU or Linux at all. There were many non-Free things already doing what GNU/Linux is doing now. It should be a liberating thing for him: It frees him to do and be what he is meant to do and be. Yes, but it also occupies him, because "his" kernel developer sits squarely in the Open Source camp. A movement that is not radical enough for Stallmans tastes. Same for Linus. He is not the right sort to carry the ideological torch -- though I know him to be well versed in the subject. He is the "get it done" guy. Linus is not hung up on the ethical backings. Which is a good thing, I agree, but there has to be some principal within community code to keep it what it is. There's plenty of room for both True. Both are important. True. No need to look down anybody's nose anywhere. Nobody is diminishing Linus technological achievements here. I don't think anybody is ignoring Linus opinion either, it is just that Linus gives an opinion that seems to advocate to just keep V2, simply ignoring that loopholes have been found that make hardware a weapon that can be used against FOSS. Proprietary interests have found a way to cage the beast. The problem with Torvalds and Stallman on opposite sides of the GPL V3 fence, is that it will possibly lead to a GPL license split. Not a good thing. I might agree that using the GPL V3 as a hammer against DRM whilst simultaneously killing many innocent babies is bad. However, Stallman seems to think he has no other means of stopping a future in which we are all locked up in a DRM ghetto. While Stallmans means to this end might be questionable, he is actually doing the best he thinks he can do. Linus current stance about not caring if hardware listens to their owners, is not constructively contributing to a future in which we can use computers freely, without EULA's that forbid anything that doesn't make some company some money. Linus doesn't think the DRM battle belongs in the license. He fails to mention where it needs to be fought. I think that is the least he could do. |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 10:09 AM EDT |
>The problem with Torvalds and Stallman on opposite sides of the GPL V3 fence, is that it will possibly lead to a GPL license split. Not a good thing. Not a good thing at all...unless...GPL V3 really is that bad. However, you are overlooking another possibility. Maybe...just maybe...critical feedback from someone of Torvalds's insight, stature, and respect, not to mention significant experience where the rubber meets the road, will cause some minor trips back to the drawing board and result in a better GPL. >Open Source is a way of toning down idealism It is nothing of the sort. It is a marketing program for free software. There is no idealism to tone down when you are dealing with corporations. It is misguided because it presumes that business will be more interested in the ability to see source code than in overall freedom. It probably seemed reasonable at the time, and provided a marketing hook, but... Over the last 5 years or so, actually working with free software in corporate environments, I have been surprised to see how unimportant the source code is to many companies. Instead, the freedom to deploy and allocate resources without concern for license restrictions is a much bigger deal. The tendency of free software to use open data formats and open protocols is another. In short, from a business standpoint, the best part of Open Source is not the open source, but the freedom. |
| jsusanka Jul 29, 2006 11:03 AM EDT |
when I read LT's objections to the GPL on an earlier draft and his comments about the DRM stuff in it I could relate to what he was saying. It's not our job to enforce our rules on people and the part about DRM in the earlier draft (haven't read this draft) was doing that. I can understand that - but at the same time I believe there must be something for the honest citizen who does not want anything to do with DRM and that there has to be something to stop the honest citizen's favorite os turned against him by putting drm in it. I am sure there will be comprise on both sides and I believe Mr. Moglan will work things out - he is a good man and I think what he has done with his law practice and helping the GPL is nothing short of heroic. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 29, 2006 11:20 AM EDT |
"from a business standpoint, the best part of Open Source is not the open source, but the freedom." And where do they think that freedom comes from? Close the sources and see how much freedom is left. |
| sbergman27 Jul 29, 2006 11:55 AM EDT |
Most of the benefits of OSS are collateral. The point (one of them, anyway) is to have to muck with the code *less* while getting more in the way of benefits. You or I don't have to write up our own little home brewed libraries for web development if a bunch of guys have already gotten together to create a web framework that we can all use. You or I don't have to fix an annoying bug in cupsd if some kid in his parents' basement in Springfield has already submitted a patch to Bugzilla. Singling out the most important benefit of the FOSS ecosystem is like trying to single out the most important benefit of the biosphere. |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 12:05 PM EDT |
tc - >And where do they think that freedom comes from? Close the sources and see how much freedom is left. Sure. But as a marketing tool, I think the OSI guys over-estimated the attraction to most businesses of having source code available as compared to the attraction of free as in gratis, free as in unrestricted, etc. The truth is, for many, if not most, businesses, the things that make free software attractive are the same things that make it attractive to you or me. OSI did (and does) perform a valuable service, though. They did help to create an ongoing conversation with regards to the use of free software in business. Good for business, good for free software, good for people who make a living with software. |
| grouch Jul 29, 2006 4:37 PM EDT |
dcparris: >"O.k. you two, kiss and make up. If you don't, I'll make both of you watch Steve ballmer videos until you do. Then I'll let Tuxchick decide what to do next. I know, I know... I'm mean as a snake in the grass. Oh well. >"Grouch, I don't think dino was attempting to call you a liar. His point was more along the lines of being honest with yourself, so to speak. That said, he might try a taste of his own medicine." Sorry, Don, but I do not see where I have wronged anyone so that I am required to "kiss and make up". I posted a response to jimf's comment, presenting what I thought he might not have considered in his assessment of the situation. This was followed, not with a disagreement with my opinion, nor a disagreement of my interpretation of facts, nor a disagreement with what I presented as facts, but instead with an unsupported judgement on my character, accusing me of intending to deliberately deceive others. This is the second such accusation within 4 days. There was nothing presented with the accusation which reveals how the individual divined my intentions, on which to base such a character judgement. Where are the facts that I distort, in order to deceive? Where are the facts I omit, in order to deceive? By what, can evil intent be assigned to me? I can accept disagreement on interpretation of facts, on failure to consider all facts, or even on what constitutes facts, and disagreement with my opinion, in all matters. I cannot accept baseless, unsupported, unsupportable personal slurs. I will log off now. So long as this smear on my name remains unretracted, as well as the previous one at http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23177/ , I would appreciate it if you would remove my name and photo from the team.php page. |
| sbergman27 Jul 29, 2006 5:18 PM EDT |
Isn't this getting a bit silly? There is nothing here worth threatening lawsuit and resignation over. Well, not unless you happen to be Jeff Merkey, I suppose. ( http://lwn.net/Articles/140157/ ) You aren't Jeff Merkey, are you? ;-) Even assuming that Dean was attacking you with evil intent, which I don't believe for a minute, is that really worth all this? Is it really worth disrupting your contribution to something that I know, from reading your posts, is very important to you? Of course not! -Steve |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 5:45 PM EDT |
All right, guys. I'd be interested in some feedback. I went back to the previous link and managed to miss the smear. Grouch linked to an article that compared $4,000 in tax credit, to $32,000 in above-the-line writeoffs. I said I thought that comparison was dishonest. In fact, my exact words were: Quoting:I think it is dishonest to compare a direct credit of $4,000 with the writeoff amount. That was my entire reference to honesty in the thread, the "smear". I did not make it clear that I was referring to the linked article's comparison, but was sufficiently specific that it should not have been necessary. The truth is that I considered that a dishonest argument and I still do. No name-calling. No personal attacks. No cursing. Simple straightforward expression. Lxer has run a couple of articles that seem to indicate free speech is a good thing. I remember one article about a protest by Richard Stallman at MIT. He stood in the back of the room during a presentation by an ATI representative and help up a sign that said "Don't buy from ATI, enemy of your freedom." I was not the only poster to applaud his actions and his exercise of free speech. Think about it. "Enemy of your freedom." That's very strong stuff, but it was an appropriate, permissible, even admirable reminder of what freedom is and why it matters. A Thanksgiving article, by none other than our illustrious Editor-in-Chief, gave thanks for the freedom we enjoy, and included this observation: Quoting:We should be thankful for the debates over copyleft vs. non-copyleft, and for those who contribute so much to these debates. Where would we be if we did not question the value and morality of software licenses? Disagree though we surely do, these debates force us to think more thoroughly about our values. Stallman was right and Don was right. Debate, opposition, and clear expression are at the heart of all freedom. When expression is muffled, all other freedoms are in peril. Now, for feedback... Did I go beyond the bounds of civil and reasoned debate? That is a different question from whether I was nice, politically correct, factually correct, sensible, or any of those other nice things. It's also a different question from whether I am or am not insightful or a complete and utter moron. If you think that I did...That's OK. I might disagree, but I would like to hear why and how, and where you think the line ought to be drawn. Would you disagree with Richard Stallman calling the ATI representative an enemy of freedom? |
| jimf Jul 29, 2006 6:10 PM EDT |
I think both you guys have gotten pretty far out of line, and are just running on bruised egos. I know that dino didn't mean to impute grouch's honesty, or call him a liar, but he can't just brush it off with a 'grouch is familiar with my posting style'. he needs to tell grouch he's sorry that he said it and admit he went over the line. Grouch, on the other hand, Is being far to thin skinned about the issue and has IMO blown the issue out of proportion and way overreacted. Sounds like the kid taking his ball and going home... Sorry grouch, but it's true. You both make significant contributions to LXer. I enjoy reading and responding to your posts, and, I don't want to see this disrupt the site. It's time for someone here to do the right thing and end this pissing contest. Let's see you guys act like the adults I know you are. Shake hands and resolve it. |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 6:34 PM EDT |
jimf - OK, I've already said this: Quoting:I certainly meant grouch no disrespect and am sorry that he took my statements that way. AND I've already said this: Quoting:I would owe grouch an apology if I did mean that we was lying. I was not calling grouch a liar. He is the one who said that, not me. AND I've already clarified exactly what it was that I referred to: Quoting:I do believe that grouch is being intellectually dishonest in his dismissal of Linus's contributions. All of those lines are from earlier posts. I don't see any "Screw you" anywhere. I don't see me calling anybody a liar. In light of these statements that I have already made, what should I be sorry that I said? I really do think that it's intellectually dishonest to brush Linus Torvalds off as a mere coder and I really do think that's what grouch was trying to do. Is that an impermissible sentiment to express on lxer? If that's impermissible, how do we know what isn't? More to the point, how will we know tomorrow and the next day? I'm sorry that this whole thing is such a mess, but I have made a very sincere effort to clarify things. I have expressed clearly that I am sorry that grouch misunderstood what I was saying. I will not, however, apologize for a forthright, reasonable and civil, albeit blunt, expression of opinion. Last I looked, for the time being, at least, this is still America. (Apologies to the rest of the world -- no disrespect intended) |
| jdixon Jul 29, 2006 6:35 PM EDT |
Dino: > I think it is dishonest to compare a direct credit of $4,000 with the writeoff amount. > Join the real world Old man, or at least make a tiny stab at honesty. Can you really not see the difference in the above two quotes? The first gives an explicit example of a point you disagree with, stating that you do not feel it is a valid comparison. It uses the word dishonest, but it is clear that it is the given fact you disagree with, not the person in general. The second has no such limitation. It is a general statement accusing the person of being dishonest, i.e., lying. Yes, I know that you undoubtably meant intellectual dishonesty with regards to the current discussion, and not outright distortion of the facts to meet the persons current needs; but that's only true because of past history. Anyone not having read your posts as long as I have would not know that, and would assume that you're calling the person an outright liar. > Would you disagree with Richard Stallman calling the ATI representative an enemy of freedom? In general, yes. RMS does not know the individual in question, and has no idea of his real motivations. It is reasonable to condemn ATI, it is not as reasonable to condemn any specific individual working for ATI, especially one who probably has no part in setting company policy. |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 6:47 PM EDT |
Jdixon - I do see the difference between the two. But you must see that I attempted to clarify what I was saying. If you'll look at my last post, I spelled out exactly what it was that I meant. Frankly, I had presumed grouch to know me better than that. When I turned out to be wrong, I spelled my position out. In light of the fact that grouch is well familiar with my postings, parse exactly what I wrote one more time: Quoting:Join the real world Old man, or at least make a tiny stab at honesty. Torvalds' specialty is code the way Stallman's is. Those two sentences are together in the original post, one right after the other. I think a reasonable person would understand what I was saying. That assessment, however, appears to be wrong, which is why I made the later clarification. As I said before, I am sorry that grouch misunderstood my intent. As I said before, I did not mean any disrespect to him and am sorry that believes otherwise. What the heck do you want from me? Do you want me to say that I'm sorry for believing that his statement was intellectually dishonest, or merely sorry for expressing that opinion? |
| jimf Jul 29, 2006 6:53 PM EDT |
dino, I've given you my opinion. It's you and grouch that need to be talking now, the rest of us are irrelevant. |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 6:56 PM EDT |
That's fine. I am at a loss over what, though. I have tried to extend an olive branch. He doesn't seem to want one. |
| grouch Jul 29, 2006 8:05 PM EDT |
I have been busy with other things and this is my first opportunity to come back here since my previous comment. My working definition of dishonesty is, 'to intentionally attempt to deceive'. I don't know about this fine distinction of "intellectually dishonest" somehow not including that intentional deception. From dictionary.reference.com: dis·hon·est adj. 1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive. 2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty. [Middle English dishoneste, dishonorable, from Old French deshoneste, probably from Medieval Latin *dishonestus : Latin dis-, dis- + Latin honestus, honorable; see honest.]dis·honest·ly adv. Synonyms: dishonest, lying, 2untruthful, deceitful, mendacious These adjectives mean lacking honesty or truthfulness. Dishonest is the least specific: a dishonest business executive. Lying conveys a blunt accusation of untruth: a lying witness giving inconsistent testimony. Untruthful is a softer term and suggests lack of veracity and divergence from fact: made an untruthful statement. Deceitful implies misleading by falsehood or by concealment of the truth: deceitful advertising. Mendacious is more formal than lying, and suggests a chronic inclination toward untruth: a mendacious and troublesome employee. dishonest adj 1: deceptive or fraudulent; disposed to cheat or defraud or deceive [syn: dishonorable] [ant: honest] 2: lacking honesty and oblivious to what is honorable [syn: unscrupulous] 3: lacking truthfulness; "a dishonest answer" 4: capable of being corrupted; "corruptible judges"; "dishonest politicians"; "a purchasable senator"; "a venal police officer" [syn: corruptible, bribable, purchasable, venal] I don't see where my actions or comments or character fit any of those definitions. I don't see where I have acted to lie, cheat, defraud or deceive. I don't see where my comments lacked truthfulness. I don't see where putting "intellectually" in front of it removes the taint of "dishonest". Dinotrac has been here longer than I have. That gives his words weight, whether they are backed with evidence or not. If my honesty is suspect, I have no business with editorial access. This is not a pissing contest for me. Either I am shown to be dishonest or the accusation was wrongfully made. The earlier comment, in the earlier thread, was not specific enough for me to be certain it was aimed at me. The ones in this thread are aimed directly at me without any doubt. That is personal. That is an attack on my character and reputation, not on my expressed comments. "I say you are being dishonest" removed all doubts about the accusation. |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 8:13 PM EDT |
grouch : I have sent you a personal mail. I have told you directly that you are misreading my intent. I have told everybody else my intent. I have told everybody else that I am not calling you a liar. So, let me ask you directly: Exactly what is it I should do? |
| grouch Jul 29, 2006 8:38 PM EDT |
dinotrac: There is nothing but dishonor and disrepute in the definitions of dishonesty. Without follow-up by you, those definitions would be what people who read this thread will use to determine your intent. If your definition of "liar" means that you do not now consider me dishonest by the definitions I posted, that is plenty good enough. As to "should", refrain from judging my honesty without some form of proof, one way or the other, in the future. I do not judge you whether I agree with your opinions or conclusions and I expect the same minimum token of respect in return. I'm ill-tempered, ill-mannered, sometimes underinformed or misinformed, sometimes stingy, sloppy in person, overly meticulous about some details, anti-social far too often, and sometimes just plain old wrong, but I will never deliberately deceive under circumstances less than dire emergency of life and limb. (I have not encountered such a situation, but can imagine one). There have been a number of people in my past, friend and foe, who have depended on that particular character flaw. |
| dinotrac Jul 29, 2006 9:09 PM EDT |
grouch: Context is everything, and that is why I clarified my post. You honesty is not suspect, certainly not by me. And, of course, you are certainly within your rights (and ability) to defend your argument. In the context of Lxer, debating points with old acquaintances, the characterization of an argument as dishonest means, more than anything, "You don't really believe that, do you?" In the course of our discussion, I thought 1. You were downplaying the depth and breadth of Linus's contriubtions, but 2. Didn't for a minute think that Linus was some "mere coder". It could be a heat of the moment kind of thing, it could be that I was reading you wrong. No matter. Please know that I do not doubt and never have doubted your integrity. Sanity maybe, integrity no. ;0) |
| grouch Jul 29, 2006 9:37 PM EDT |
dinotrac: Thank you very much for that. I am now convinced that you haven't been taken over by alien pod people, after all. I'm hardly the one to trivialize Linus Torvalds' contributions and accomplishments. Without Linux, I would have given up on computers years ago. Without Linux, who would the FreeBSD bigots bash (there are Linux bigots who bash FreeBSDers, too)? Without Linux, there might not even be a GNU+BSD system because so much of it was developed on a GNU+Linux system. The beautiful, responsive systems we use today would likely be nothing but dreams if not for Linux. There was a garage full of tools (GNU) and the makings of a real sporty body (X), but no engine and controls. Torvalds provided that engine with control linkages to the cockpit. Evolution went into high gear then. |
| helios Jul 29, 2006 9:52 PM EDT |
"I'm ill-tempered, ill-mannered, sometimes underinformed or misinformed, sometimes stingy, sloppy in person, overly meticulous about some details, anti-social far too often, and sometimes just plain old wrong, but I will never deliberately deceive under circumstances less than dire emergency of life and limb. (I have not encountered such a situation, but can imagine one). There have been a number of people in my past, friend and foe, who have depended on that particular character flaw." That has to be one of the most powerful "I" statements I have ever read and I want to personally thank you for the honesty and raw communication value it delivered. Now...I talk with both of you from time to time, but know neither of you well enough to preach to you. That isn't going to stop me. The two battling parties here are unquestionably valuable to the Linux Community as an entity and as a group of individuals. I have to say that being a voyeur to this dispute has been disturbing. It is my observation that one statement went over as mis-interpreted allbeit harsh, and the brawl was on. Then again, that is only my perception...it's like walking into the room immediately after the shot was fired. I see the effect, but the cause was unobserved. All similes aside, it is more than disturbing to come into an environment of learning, comradarie and focused effort to find two of the most important residents slogging away at one another. But hey...that's just my observation. I would hope that this can be worked out with both egos in tact and all harsh feelings purged. They get heavy dragging them about after a time. And let me say it only because I know it to be fact...the end of the road gets here much sooner than many of us expect it to. It would be a shame to arrive at that intersection and suddenly forget that you left harsh words or deeds running miles behind you...it is much to late to turn around and go back to put everything right. Nuff said? Now... "Stallman may be using the wrong tool, but at least he is doing something against the encroachment on our computing Freedom." I took a copy of gpl2 and gpl3 with me to Washington and while I am a scholar of neither, I can comfortably say: "It's the DRM Stupid." While I have had "spirited exchanges" that bordered on screaming matches with several close friends over Stallman's Fascism, I must come down on his side of the issue here...as over-stated as it may be. The unholy alliance of DRM and Trusted Computing is going to change the landscape of computer use for generations and it is with true urgency that we must do everything within our power to see it does not come to pass. Does anyone remember the DMCA battle? Do you remember when that was passed into law? It was at approximately 2:15 AM on the 12th of October. The damned thing was stuffed into some farm subsidy bill, hidden from plain view and it was allowed to slither onto Bill Clintons desk two weeks later to be signed. They KNEW this bill was wrong, but the votes had already been bought and paid for folks...the same way DRM and Trusted Computing Modules have been. We can fight and fight and fight, but DRM is going to pass in one form or another. Stallman sees this just as I saw it last month...They KNOW the issues...they know the ramifications. Alas...money has exchanged hands and promises have been made. Now they must be kept, and kept at the expense of our freedom. Oh, by the way...? The attitude carried by the "industry" is simple. Anyone who sits down at a connected computer is a thief and a liar. That is to include your 78 year old mother and my 86 year old friend Alice. Well, wait...Alice IS a thief and a liar, but I taught her how to do it...that doesn't count. YOUR Mom does. What they do not count on is the backlash they have set into motion from the American Consumer. Yes, Stallman's position is on that one issue alone...only because of the havoc it can and will cause. Maybe Linus sees this as a "just-lay-back-and-enjoy-it...we-can't-stop-it" moment. Both are reacting to the GPL3 in the extreme...just at opposite ends of it. Neither are justified, but I think we should at least acknowledge that we understand it. Maybe we can even come up with the solution. After all...I've personally witnessed such solutions hammered out in this very room...when we are working together. h OH...speaking of solutions...out of the mouth of a 13 year old girl... In response to the Austin American Socialist article on 12 local residents being sued for music downloading on Shareza.: "What's the big deal with RIAA suits? Everyone who downloads music just pitch in five bucks and when they sue a bunch of people, just pay it out of the fund. Obvious logistical problems aside...this is brilliant. still h |
| dcparris Jul 29, 2006 10:36 PM EDT |
As for the 'Grouch and Dino Show', all's well that ends well, I hope. Might have made a better April Fool's Day joke, but as long as it's resolved, I'm cool. And I'm with helios on the DRM stuff. My concern is that our society is asleep at the helm. 'Consumers' just buy into whatever 'the industry' throws at them. Worse, others actually defend the lackadaisical attitude with comments like, "look, everyone's buying it - it must be o.k." |
| grouch Jul 29, 2006 10:54 PM EDT |
dcparris: Please don't expect a re-run on 1 April. Neither my blood pressure nor my keyboard could stand the strain. I sure missed some amazing views and insights into the GPL3 situation in this thread, but am catching up. Sorry about the off-topic disruption. Hopefully, Torvalds' concerns about the collateral damage from the broad DRM brush will be addressed without gutting the GPL3's effectiveness in preventing the loophole seekers from absconding with free code. There are a lot of good minds at work on the problems and lots of discussions to tease problems and solutions from the morass. |
| jimf Jul 29, 2006 11:52 PM EDT |
> "It's the DRM Stupid." Yes, of course it is, but is GPL3 the answer, or Goverment action, or ??? All of this is very confusing. > "Stallman may be using the wrong tool, but at least he is doing something against the encroachment on our computing Freedom." At least that's true. Nice to see you here again helios :) |
| helios Jul 30, 2006 3:46 AM EDT |
but is GPL3 the answer,....." It may well not be, but looking around a bit, I'm not seeing any other viable alternative. The point has been made that may consumers are now referred to as sheeple and not people due to their unwillingness to look beyond their cell phone antennas. One day they are on YouTube and watching their film clip, the next day they have to dig out the credit card and pay .99 cents to watch it or pay a yearly fee for "premium content." That is what the MediaNazi's are after...another cash cow to replace that little silver shiny disk. The GPL gives us a frame of reference, a beacon to point to when it gets choppy and rough out there....as of right now, we simply don't have an "official" or legal way to deal with this threat aside from the GPL. That is why I see Stallman's point. Here is the problem as I see it Jim. Those who are making our laws are frighteningly ignorant of these issues. They do not know DRM from Trusted Computing from Net Neutrality...the knee-jerk reaction I got from my short visit was akin to: "aw hell, let Microsoft take care of it...they know what they are doing." I wish I could wait the obligatory 5 seconds then giggle and say "just kidding". Unfortunately, I cannot. And Jim, thank you for your concern and kindness...as well as everyone here...thank you. It's been a tough couple O months but nothing that couldn't be dealt with. It was good to know that I have friends hollerin' for me. Give me time, I'll turn that into "hollerin' AT me." h |
| dinotrac Jul 30, 2006 3:49 AM EDT |
>Those who are making our laws are frighteningly ignorant of these issues. Many are, but I don't think that's the real problem. I think the real problem is those who know full well what they're doing and have the political capital to steer the rest. |
| jdixon Jul 30, 2006 5:57 AM EDT |
Dino: > I do see the difference between the two. But you must see that I attempted to clarify what I was saying. Yes, you did. And I thought you did so not long after my first post on the subject. I only made the second post because you seemd to be asking what you had done that had upset grouch so much, and it seemed obvious to me. Grouch: Intellectual dishonesty in the sense Dino is using the term, by my understanding, is not being honest with yourself. It is holding two positions which cannot be reconciled, and refusing to recognize it. I.E., not following through to the logical conclusions of your positions. It is not a deliberate attempt to deceive someone else. |
| helios Jul 30, 2006 11:50 AM EDT |
I think the real problem is those who know full well what they're doing and have the political capital to steer the rest...... Identified with pin-point accuracy. Now, outside of the bullet-proof vest all Congressmen and Senators wear, the one that protects them from most legal prosecution...what state and federal laws are being broken by this sort of "sheparding". We are seriously considering civil action against those who willfully turn the rudder on this issue into favorable winds for the RIAA and MPAA. Serious question...flippant answers appreciated but serious ones requested. If I remember correctly, me pirate mate and friend Carla addressed this issue a while back...I simply cannot find it. h |
| dinotrac Jul 30, 2006 12:41 PM EDT |
Helios -- I'm not sure specifically what you're referring to. In general, outside of criminal or tortious conduct, it's very difficult to take legal action against a government official for actions taken in the course of duty. That's actually a good thing, though it doesn't always seem to be. |
| grouch Jul 30, 2006 12:47 PM EDT |
helios: Have you tried http://lxer.com/module/forums/search.php (I can't get any forum search to show anything beyond 1 page of results). jdixon: If supr3//3_l0rd_d347h_|-|a> |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!