To start with, I notice that Brian Profitt’s suggestion that I was lashing out at some negative criticism I received has been seized on by some commenters as a reason to dismiss what I said. However, although that was a shrewd suggestion on Brian’s part, it’s only true to the extent that the entry was inspired by someone asking me what I meant by conspiracy theory. Going into my fourth year as an online journalist, I long ago became immune to the insults and accusations of bias from both sides that often threaten to overwhelm thoughtful responses and legitimate corrections of mistakes. In fact, I maintain a page on my web site where I list choice bits of abuse for visitors’ amusement. I may sometimes respond, but I’m not much interested in flame wars. I have an anarchistic temperament, and, so long as I have my say, I’m perfectly willing to let others have theirs, even if theirs don’t have a lot of love for me.
That’s not to say that I don’t find people’s reactions fascinating – and more than a little intellectually distressing, since I’m an ex-university instructor who once spend his days trying to help people develop their abilities to argue coherently. A surprising number of people leaped to the conclusion that, despite a clear statement to the contrary, I was only talking about attitudes towards Microsoft (perhaps because I recently wrote an equally misread article that suggested that, since the free software was strong enough to defend itself, we could be wary of Microsoft without being paranoid). Even more seem to think that proving that there were reasons to distrust Microsoft in some way validated the attitudes and styles of arguments that I was condemning. Many, too, do not seem to believe that it is possible to mistrust corporation or organization without expressing unrelenting hate for it.
Clearly, what people brought to their reading was as important – and, in some cases, more important – than what I wrote. That’s their right, but, as I’ve often lamented in the past, if someone wants to disagree with me, I wish they would at least disagree with what I actually said, rather than what they imagine I said. At times, people seem to be arguing with their own reflections to such an extent that I feel extraneous to the process.
But I think my favorite response was from a commenter who assumed the responsibility of giving me elementary advice about how to write. I’m always willing to learn, but, considering that last year I sold roughly a quarter million words about free software, now I know the spirit in which Lauren Bacall responded a few years ago on hearing that she had been voted one of the sexiest elderly women in film. “That will certainly pep up my career,” she said (or something to that effect). “I can’t wait to tell my agent.” While not at the top of my profession, I’m not at the bottom, either, so I can’t help but be bemused by unasked advice from an unknown and relatively unproven writer — especially when I personally wouldn’t give writing advice unless specifically asked.
However, the most troubling thought to me in all the reactions is that I’ve apparently lost my anonymity online. This blog is modestly successful, but its readership is generally many times below what an article on Linux.com or Datamation receive. I thought it useful as a sandbox, a place to express my thoughts-in-progress without any fuss. If anything, I expected to get a few responses from friends and acquaintances.
But, as readers of the entry rise into the thousands, I realize that I was naive. Regardless of what merits I do or don’t have as a writer (and nobody could be more critical of my work than me, believe me), apparently some people do notice what I have to say about free software. Some of them may hate it, but they notice. That’s a humbling and frightening thought (and leads me to mutter repeatedly about the blind leaning the blind).
Even more importantly, it means that, unless I start writing under another name, I have to assume a greater responsibility for what I write publicly. No more working out of ideas publicly for me – from now on, I need to make sure that I state my assumptions clearly, and address opposing views in more detail, and not publish on certain subjects until my ideas are fully developed. People are still going to make invalid inferences, no matter what I do, but I feel the responsibility all the same, even while I tell myself that I’m being arrogant in feeling the obligation.
In a week or so, perhaps I’ll revisit the topic. Meanwhile, thanks for everyone who has commented or blogged in response. It’s interesting, and I’ve learned, even though I don’t have the time to respond in detail to everyone.
Hahah Bruce… If you wanted to stay semi-anonymous you should have stayed out of fanboy territory!
Just wait – next you’ll become one of the evil shadowy figures in somebody’s conspiracy theory.
I am shocked. Totally shocked.
In a new blog post Bruce Byfield points to another page where he attributes the following quote to me:
“Bruce is a Micro$oft/Novell shill. Don’t listen to him, he spreads nothing but lies.”
I never wrote this thing and following the link even proves this. Bruce, you must correct this. You’re putting fake word right in my mouth. I have always loved your articles, cited them and respected them a lot. How can you get something like this wrong? I am sure it’s not a deliberate mistake.
Roy:
If you follow the quote, you’ll see that it is signed with your name. So, naturally, I assumed that it was from you
However, I’ve taken you at your word and altered the attribution.
Thanks, Bruce. And no, it wasn’t me and this is far from the first time people fake my identity.
Be careful Bruce. Again, you put all your blame on the readers, and hardly any at yourself – which is not the first time BTW. You could share the fate of Ron Enderle, who is nowadays largely ignored by the community. I don’t think – as somebody of the community – that you can afford that. It may not have much influence on your income on the short term, but may have long term effects you want to avoid.
A communicator can simply not put all the blame on the receivers. An note, that neither as a person nor as a writer you will ever reach a point where you have arrived. No matter how many copies you sell.
As Bukowski put it: “There is a problem with writers. If what a writer wrote was published and sold many, many copies, the writer thought he was great. If what a writer wrote was published and sold a medium number of copies, the writer thought he was great. If what a writer wrote was published and sold very few copies, the writer thought he was great. If what the writer wrote never was published and he didn’t have enough the money to publish it himself, then he thought he was truly great. The truth, however, was there was very little greatness. It was almost nonexistent, invisible. But you could be sure that the worst writers had the most confidence, the least self-doubt”.
Hans Bezemer
Amazing.
I wasn’t interested in the conspiracy post at all; I sped through the text, seeing that you adress things both well-known and — to some point, of course, valid.
Then I forgot about it. 🙂
Leslie
Interesting observations… I think it’s safe to say that conspiracy theorists sit in both sides of the fanboy camps. I happen to agree with you though, in both posts. And while I would be remiss to point out that I do have my own biases, not everything that happens in the world is the result of of the actions of one side or the other – as if one side or the other has that much control. I’ve picked my side, but I understand the viewpoint of the other side, even if I don’t agree with it.
Lots to think about – something unusual in a blog post these days – thanks.
“Be careful Bruce. Again, you put all your blame on the readers, and hardly any at yourself”
Hans, I really have to question your arithmetic. Out of 9 paragraphs (7 if you exclude the introduction and the conclusion), I devote 3 to saying that I have to assume a greater responsibility. Those 3 are also at the end of the entry, signalling that they represent the most important point. I don’t see how that qualifies as “hardly” — but, of course, you are already firmly committed to seeing me in a certain way.
I realize that, because I publish, I present an opening for people like you who want to take tours through my life. That’s your right.
But please stop imagining that you know me well enough to give me advice, especially about writing. You don’t.
Good on ya’ Bruce.
Reminds me of a quote attributed to Einstein:
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Most writing is a result of something that means something to you or stirs a feeling.
Those who wonder if they are insane probably aren’t, but there are a lot of others who should be asking themselves the question. And they probably aren’t going to take kindly to having it pointed out.
It’s may just be more fun to theorize than to think.
Keep on writing. I appreciate your material.
saludos,
Richard.
Bruce,
It has come to my attention that one of my comments may have been perceived as unnecessary harsh.
Europeans, and in particular Dutchman, have a reputation of being frank and outspoken.
If this has been the case, note this was not intentional and I apologize for any inconvenience.
Hans Bezemer
Bruce,
Sometimes there are real conspiracies and they they leave email trails and money changes hands.
You really think that the Nazgul don’t believe that there was an MS conspiracy to support SCO in their case.
Mr.Byfield I must agree with Mr.Bezemer on the blame put on readers it was patheptic. You have some opinion of yourself Mr.Byfield that comes across only the wrong way to put it simple. Did you Mr.Byfield realize that the people you were talking about would not stand for it, did you think Mr.Byfield before you wrote the words that such a reaction was normal. Your opinion of yourself gets in the way Mr.Byfield, between you and other people that you obviously look down upon because they don’t measure up Mr.Byfield ?. Responsibility Mr.Byfield ?, it should have been first and not an after thought because you find yourself under fire. My opinion Mr.Byfield is I see no other name under you could write without that opinion of yourself showing through.
Geo.
What’s all the hoopla, can’t a [erson have an opinion
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpin-yən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval esteem
2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view
Geo,
Thank you for some wonderfully entertaining venom. Your comment will be going on my abuse page for others to treasure as soon as I have a spare moment.
Bruce,
Don’t go adopting pseudonyms or censoring yourself until “Idea 1.0” is complete (sandboxes are important, as I’m sure you know full well). And definitely don’t listen to people telling you how to write.
Your popularity and frequent links from sites such as linuxtoday.com are indicative that people like what you write, even if it has the side effect of drawing in a share of idiots.
I read your initial posting at the time and didn’t comment (I had no reason to), but my reaction was that it needed saying. I suspect a large proportion of the how-ever-many-thousand readers thought and did the same.
Some people are always going to misconstrue what you say, and will continue to do it even if you went to legalistic levels of trying to cover every ambiguity. Don’t let them get you down, and don’t deprive everyone else of a good read!
James.
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.
– J. Edgar Hoover
Hey Bruce –
I’d lend you my flame-retardant underwear, but I am in constant need of it myself.
In fact, my most recent use was on LinuxToday, in the comments on Brian’s piece.
I’ve been writing on Linux — unpaid amateur status — for nearly ten years, and have learned one important thing:
There are people out there who are not satisfied that you use, love, and promote free software. You must take two additional steps:
1. Assume the ostrich position.
From there, you cannot see any warts. You also cannot see anything that might be positive about the doings of proprietary software vendors, most especially Microsoft.
Which brings us to:
2. Hate hate hate hate Microsoft.
Actually, that is insufficient. You must also hate hate hate hate anybody who has dealt in any way with Microsoft without hanging their head in shame and shouting, “Please forgive me, O Richard, for I have sinned.”
Once you realize the nature of the people you’re dealing with, it gets pretty easy to let a lot of that stuff roll off your back.
Poor Bruce, getting read by lots of ppl, wonder why this problem doesn’t seem to bother most Journos. At least you do admit that :
“That’s a humbling and frightening thought (and leads me to mutter repeatedly about the blind leaning the blind).
Even more importantly, it means that, unless I start writing under another name, I have to assume a greater responsibility for what I write publicly.”
That does not appear to be something that bothered ppl like Rob Enderle, or 95% of ZDnet authors who get linked to from Linux Today. They’re all seem very qualified to write on topics they demonstrate they know little about.
Best to change your name Bruce, avoid worrying about accuracy like all the others. It’ll only hold you back.
Perhaps the topics are the problem, and also adopting the tone of a pedague. If you write an article saying “it’s time to stop obsessing about M$”, then who’s going to read it and comment? Those who found it boring, superficial? Those who find it disappointing because it just perpetuates superficial press-memes which should have become extinct years ago? On the real FOSS sites, they don’t read much about M$, there’s too much real stuff. Just occasional news items about court judgements and contraversial attempts at fast-tracking the OOXML spec to be a standard.
Without solid researched facts and references, articles look like opinions with an authoriative tone, and no better than feedback that gets attracted.
Mr. Byfield I’m sorry to read you feel my comment was abuse, it is not. I over the years have read your work and never posted a comment because I, most of the time didn’t care enough to take the time so, if you wish to add my two comments to your abuse page I will enjoy reading it too as I have already those already there. I hope the abuse page serves you well, I feel the large reaction has taken it’s toll you in a bad way and I did not want to add the that, no, at the same time Mr. Byfield like me and the rest or not, we are a part of this world too. If I can say, that Rob #18, in my opinion, he ends his comment with something that I find very true:
“Without solid researched facts and references, articles look like opinions with an authoriative tone, and no better than feedback that gets attracted.”
The point out of this I’m talking about is: “articles look like opinions with an authoriative tone, and no better than feedback that gets attracted.” to the point is to say, what you feel about what you write, has nothing to do with a reader will take personally and what comes out in a reaction.
Geo
Bruce,
I started to post a response to your original article on conspiracy theorists (but figured it would get lost in the noise) in which I found at least 5 of the 11 criteria applicable to Richard Stallman, thereby making him a strong candidate. However, I reject the idea that he is a conspiracy theorist, and is instead a man dedicated to a mission, which is a very different type of person.
That said, I extremely dislike pigeon-holing people, especially with highly charged labels. By painting with such a broad brush, discussions degenerate into arguments over people’s character and the minutiae of how to define it (ie. how many lies does one have to tell before being labeled a liar?). The end result is that the original discussion is completely devalued, in this case, the question of whether those people in the FOSS community who take extreme positions are actually hurting it.
I personally believe that the FOSS community regulates itself. I have witnessed incidents in which flamefests directed at people who are generally supportive of FOSS have been doused by those us who are fed up with the few who are unwilling to accept even the slightest hint of criticism. But I have a lot of sympathy for those who vehemently express their frustration over the unfair/unethical/even illegal tactics used by MS, and find pinning a label like ‘conspiracy theorist’ on them to be over the top.
As a side note, I entertain a conspiracy theory of my own in which at least some of the more fanatical posts come from anti-FOSS posers masquerading as FOSS nut cases. Considering the anonymity provided by the web, this is definitely not impossible, and until it is proven to be false, I suggest that everyone take the myth of the ‘Linux zealot’ with a grain of salt.
I have enjoyed your technical articles but have found a number of your opinion pieces to be a bit premature for publication. I hope that the lessons learned from this incident will help you improve all of your writing.
Later . . . Jim
JJS —
I’m curious how you came up with 5/11 applying to RMS.
I find, at most, two, and even those are shaky.
He is obsessed with free software and he does tend to the either/or side of things. However, obsession alone does not make a conspiracy nut because obsession is also the province of visionaries and artists.
As to either/or, RMS is very good — very, very good — at providing a well-reasoned and sensible argument for his positions. I don’t always agree with him — even think he’s a bit of a fruitcake — but he is dedicated, smart, and (believe it or not) reasonable.
One must always add a dash of judgment when contemplating a list like Bruce’s.
“I’m curious how you came up with 5/11 applying to RMS.
I find, at most, two, and even those are shaky.”
Yes! This is the sort of discussion I was hoping to get (tho’ from a much smaller audience).
Would it be accurate to say that:
1. The list should exclude people participating in their professions or vocations?
2. The first couple of characteristics are required, while the rest are ones that conspiracy theorists may share with other people whoses arguments are faulty?
3. Since RMS does sometimes strike people as obsessional (do a Google search on his name and “obsession”), it’s not occasional lapses into the behaviors I list, but a consistent tendency that makes the label of “conspiracy theorist” suitable?
“One must always add a dash of judgment when contemplating a list like Bruce’s.”
I couldn’t agree more.
“Conspiracy theorists and free software” is talking behaviors of people with the only comparison being available for reference on behaviors is the author’s own writing. Where is any reference to writings on the subject the author has written on, I personally have found none. Talking about “paranoia”, has the author provided references within the Psychology profession if the author is not in the profession, and I see no references on that. The question to consider is Psychology a subjet to base upon evaluations from opinion alone. This is a subject that is too serious in my opinion.
>> Yes! This is the sort of discussion I was hoping to get…
Are you trolling?
Why do you still maintain this “conspiracy theorist” thing?
Do you know what a conspiracy is? Do you know what a theory is? So what is the beef?
I think Brian Proffitt may have been right that you have really been bothered lately by something.
I wonder if I can come up with a hat to describe what you are currently expressing?.. Naw. It’s too much trouble to think on this now. While some speak of conspiracies, there are more important things to talk about.
I completely understand, btw, that a person should feel free to blog ideas out. Do be careful though. Oh, and I am not trying to downplay whatever value may exist in your observations, but I think there is definitely something misguided about the angle and things like:
>> Would it be accurate to say that:
>> 1. The list should exclude people participating in their professions or vocations?
I mean, do you want to become a conspiracy theorist theorist?
I have not attacked you very much because you have hedged quite a bit. It’s much easier, for example, to attack those who may want to start seeing conspiracy theories everywhere and will start pointing. It’s especially easy when they are wrong (when there is no conspiracy being described) or point to proven conspiracies.
Anyway, I imagine in these early days of conspiracy theory theorizing many false prophets will arise to try and lead the whole movement astray. Beware and have fun.
>> You also cannot see anything that might be positive about the doings of proprietary software vendors, most especially Microsoft.
Yes, many of us really want Microsoft out. You really have no reason to take that personally.
Where I think you are correct to feel defensive and sport your underwear is when people attack you personally or accuse you of working for Microsoft or something of that nature when it may not be true (I may have done some of that, for better or worse, correctly or incorrectly, cause I’m human). You might also get offended at being called evil, for example. In these cases, thick skin would also work well against anything that gets past the underwear.
Here is an example of why I completely want MS out, and why I am not shy about saying that Novell and mono are helping Microsoft stay in.
Let’s consider this comment made on LT:
>> Mono could be seen as a version of .Net that doesn’t leave you at Microsoft’s mercy
That appears to be a true statement that points to the value of mono. In fact, many are likely to believe it. The problem is that if you own any Microsoft technology (whether custom built with MS tools or whether we are talking about standard MS offerings), you are at Microsoft’s mercy. Microsoft has the ability to update their software so that yours no longer works. Mono can’t save you from this. The only way out is to boot Microware completely.
Imagine a nice mono application all of a sudden stops being able to access MS Access, or misbehaves and crashes frequently when run over Windows XP. Imagine it all of a sudden fails to open documents saved presumably in OOXML. There are literally an infinite number of ways to sabotage third party open source software that as part of its normal functioning must interact with MSware to an extent. This is the more true the lower in the stack we find the M(s)alware.
Remember that we provide all our source code. Microsoft sees precisely how we get our things done. If it is easy to fix open source (certainly as compared to closed source), it’s even easier to break it. If you can sabotage closed source products that interact with and depend on yours, you can that much easier sabotage open source products in the same position.
Now, if Microsoft were not a monopolist, likely they would lose for pulling such a stunt, but from where they are perched, with tremendous control in numerous tech markets, it is the competition that feels the pointy part of the customer’s boot. It’s illegal, anti-competitive, unethical,.. yes, yes, yes. But that all seems to be irrelevant.
Novell is giving Microsoft life. That’s their business decision. Hey, they got a bunch of money. But I have no problem saying that, while good for Novell, it is horrible for the majority of the rest of the community. I have no problem stating that Novell was contracted out to help Microsoft. For a different set of related reasons, I also dislike mono and all dotnet clones, some more than others, since the copyright holders, the project leaders, and other details are important to consider, too.
What Novell and mono gang could do to make me less upset (wow, I know they are REALLY out to make little me happy) would be to stop pretending they provide any sort of MS compatibility or salvation (cause all they may have at most is compatibility with some document out there or a snapshot of some code they hope Microsoft actually uses in their products) or that somehow they can serve as second source to Microsoft. This wouldn’t make me happy, but it would make me less upset. To make me happy, they can do what no one in their right mind expects them to do which would be to stop supporting dotnet and ISO approval for OOXML. I feel the latter is injury while the former is insult (injury to those that actually lend their trust to Novell).
Here are two very recently created links that bolster some of these points a bit: [They are not “proof” of wrongdoing by any means. Also, I am describing vulnerabilities to monopolists and perceptions about products.] http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2008010401126NWMSSW and http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-01-04-016-26-OP-CY-0020 . This last story I take to be symbolic of existing cases and don’t necessarily believe it to describe an actual occurance (though it may be 100% real for all I know).
>> From there, you cannot see any warts.
You have to use tact here because we are talking about marketing products, and because it would be naive to pretend that there aren’t people working on Microsoft’s behalf trying to create the impression that while Windows is fine and dandy Linux isn’t (take for example this http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2008010802826OPBZ ). This is virtually a complete lie of course. It’s mostly a matter of opinion, but inevitably outright lies sneak in there.
>> Hate hate hate hate Microsoft.
A corporation does not have feelings. Neither does software.
As for the humans that are attached to them, many are filthy filthy rich. In any case a duck is a duck regardless of how it quacks. Review the above paragraphs if you don’t still see why I want them out far away from their monopoly position. In fact, it’s not just about a business here or an app there (or millions of them), it’s about the integrity of electronic transactions. A possible future has Microsoft behind much of it. Would you really trust Internet searches done on M(S)alware without anything like Google to back it up?
Checks and balances are crucial to a healthy democracy and economy.
>> Once you realize the nature of the people you’re dealing with, it gets pretty easy to let a lot of that stuff roll off your back.
Not sure what my nature is, but you don’t have to take anything I say about Microsoft personally. What I hope is that we can discuss things and not write each other off into some labeled bin or other.
******
Believe it or not, we are talking about important stuff here not games. Important stuff make people passionate, especially when they find any of themselves, their freedom, their property, etc, to be in potential danger.
>it’s not occasional lapses into the behaviors I list, but a consistent tendency that makes the label of “conspiracy theorist” suitable?
I think you’re getting warmer there. The real issue is eyes that see what isn’t there couple with ears that won’t hear contradictory evidence and a mind that won’t question the original proposition.
It may even be a bit like the classic Supreme Court statement wrt pornography : I may not be able to define it adequately, but I know it when I see it.
Consider the case of Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who won the 2005 Nobel Prize for medicine.
In the early 1980s, they discovered that most peptic ulcers were the result of a bacterial infection. Nearly all of the medical establishment thought they were nuts. The big pharmaceutical companies were making billions from drugs like Tagamet.
These guys faced a real honest-to-gosh organized conspiracy of shared belief, conventional wisdom, and threatened interests. For years, they would require all of the single-minded tenacity that we associate with conspiracy nuts.
But…they took their case to peer-reviewed journals. They did real honest-to-gosh research. They made their case without reference to some dark and mysterious malevolent force.
The nuts go…well, nuts.
They don’t see the idiocy of presuming that the Soviets would keep quiet about a plot to fake moon landings.
They don’t wonder why the military would capture jets full of American citizens and then kill them — including the wife of the Solicitor General — so they can fly remote-controlled jets into the World Trade Center.
They don’t wonder why, in a world where no secret seems to stay secret, nobody steps forward to blow the whistle on these operations, even though the number of people involved must be huge.
They see some individual .Net programmer porting a couple of cute little games he wrote for mono over to the XO and see the evil hand of Microsoft at work.
The thing about nuts is that they’re like The Shadow — they see evil lurking around every corner. There is no need for fact, only assertion and paranoia.
The problem for us is to avoid getting too smug. We can’t afford to forget the old joke: Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean somebody’s not out to get you.
No, that reflects your bias against amateur contributors. When did RMS hold down a job?
That his idea and dedication built a real achievement, and changed the world in a positive way, is not lessened because he was not paid to wear a soot and turn up 9-5!
The mistake pundits make, is that of generalising. You write articles that attract hot heads and folk with too much time on their hands, but not enough time to think seriously about anything. Then you’re surprised, when the audience you selected, doesn’t obey the rules of debate.
Remember, these ppl expect innacuracy, and shoddy work, they’ve had years of reports out of Gartner and “Linux Ready for Enterprise?” type stuff, which ignore inconvenient facts, prefering opinion based on a commercial keep the advertiser’s happy perspective.
May be you should ask why journalists deny Conspiracies, against evidence like “Halloween” docs, Sun’s settlement for Java sabotage, and other big money cases. Why was it that somone like Rob Enderle who now admitted what was apparent at time, he had no clue about UNIX, SysV, BSD & Linux history (which would have made him wary), now way to check on SCO’s assertions, yet lent his name, after signing NDA’s. In his non “mea culpa” piece, super impressively he writes about some CIO’s lack of diligence (could be fired), and minimises the consequences of his irresponsible backing of an attempt at extortion via law courts; expressing pain and seeking sypmathy at resulting downturn of his business.
There’s a lot of ppl on the net, and many of them are frustrated and angry, and may vent and sound off in irrational ways.
While I don’t agree with RMS on everything, I find him to be honest and consistent, and thus have the highest regard for him. My observations about the characteristics in Bruce’s CT list are based on my own summarization of the opinions others have publicly expressed about him, some of whom have interacted with him personally.
– An obsession about an […] issue to the exclusion of everything else
– An either / or mindset
– A refusal to modify opinions, even in light of new evidence
– A refusal to consider alternate explanations
– A lack of self-reflection
For completeness, the remaining factors, that I don’t believe apply in the least are:
– Extreme paranoia directed at the object of the obsession
– An inability to summarize other viewpoints with any accuracy
– The use of decontextualized evidence
– A lack of civility and a quickness to give and take offense
– A disregard for the rules of evidence
– A scattergun approach to evidence
You could argue that, based on Bruce’s definition for each of the items, some do not apply. For instance, on the refusal to consider alternative explanations, he certainly had to compromise on GPLv3. However, I have read panel discussions where RMS’s answer to every alternative offered was a flat, “No,” which many have interpreted to mean, “I’m right, you’re wrong, end of discussion,” when in reality, he means that by starting with the 4 freedoms, it is not logically possible to reach the alternate position. (And I think we all agree that he is obsessed with the 4 freedoms. 😉
But this supports my original position, which is that by analyzing a person’s character, we sideline the core issues. And for the FOSS community, some of the core issues, such as software patents, DRM, and ODF vs. OOXML, are guaranteed to cause tempers to flare. As an analogy, think of a dog that day after day has neighborhood children throw rocks at it as they pass its yard. Someone who sees the dog after months of this would probably call it vicious. But is that really the dog’s nature? As humans, I would hope that when the heat of argument dies down we can take productive action on important issues, without having our position denigrated by impulsive comments–from both sides in most cases.
Later . . . Jim
Jim –
Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like we don’t disagree.
In some ways, RMS probably suffers from the fact that he hears the same thing over and over and over again. Once you’ve considered a position thoroughly, being presented with the same questions again doesn’t call for much reflection.
I had a chance to talk with Peter Brown (FSF’s Executive Director) last spring, and he told me that some GPLV3 changes absolutely were made in response to practices they hadn’t encountered but which were entirely consistent with proper use of free software.
He also told me, and I’ve heard from others, that RMS takes a “Show me” stance when people want something changed. Having given a position serious consideration, one should have to do more than “something bad could happen”. That could be viewed as a refusal to consider alternatives, but it really isn’t.
I have a hard time with this idea about “alternatives” and someone’s “refusal to consider alternatives” because not all alternatives as suggestions fit into what is to be achieved. The design of most anything starts with the most basic ideas that are mostly superficial, however, the choices made that make the final design, are an individual having that vision of what the final design is to be. This applies to the design of a license as well.
What a design is to be, choices of alternatives has no meaning, the creator’s vision is the guide. The refusal to consider alternatives is the creative right, those alternatives if taken without being balanced in the design by the creator, alternatives would no longer be alternatives as they would become mistakes !. The responsibility for alternatives suggested, is a subject I have yet to see here. The suggestion that refusal to consider alternatives ?, the author should list the alternatives he accepted in his writings.
Design is not in a box, no matter what the design is, it is for sure not limited nor based upon evaluations of one individual’s contrivances of Psychology. I as a designer find the author’s lack of alternatives on approach to this whole subject “Conspiracy theorists and free software” hypocritical and personal as a user designer creator in Free Software.
I’m tired of this, this will be my last taking part in this Blog.
I’m slightly amused by all the (negative) attention your article received. I remember reading it and thought it was pretty good–I follow some conspiracy websites on the illuminati and the global conspiracy (for fun, in the same way other people read the tabloids)– and what you said was dead on!
At the expense of starting another flameware–the problem is that sometimes people don’t like to see what they really are. They lock themselves in a “intellectual room” — your advice of stating your case and then moving on is sound.
“I’m tired of this, this will be my last taking part in this Blog.”
Yes, going back on my word, I juat have something to add.
The many objections to the author’s work are obviously going ignored, however I must add that the author has failed to realize and include some facts, and I see this can be attributed to a lack of complete information or the facts were ignored.
The facts are that the people the author talks about are not the only force(s) in the community of Free Software, the author’s choice(s) of people well known to the community was intentional in my opinion. The list in post #28 JJS, could be almost anyone as even the best educated have such human weakness ( as most in the list are just human weakness and not unique) and not having to do with conspiracy theorists for sure. I find myself amused by the author to take an opportunity to markup common human behaviors as evidence of conspiracy theorists or even the suggestion of.
The author has failed to realize that non-FreeSoftware companies and corporations are in fact, are playing equal roles in the community and those individuals of those companies and corporations as heads have the very obvious common human behaviors, so they too must run the risk of conspiracy theorists ?; odd, the author does not include them in a fair complete picture. If one wishes to be an “intellectual”, then must wipe the mud from the feet before walking into another’s house because contrivances to build a work on such a small sample of people is an equal weakness (the list) with equal danger of being a conspiracy theorist ?.
Now I feel I have said enough, I will ignore all the author’s work in the future.
Thanks, Geo.