[buug] Seek the Wisdom Of Our Elder Geeks

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Zeke Krahlin (ezekielk at goct.net):

> But for now, I feel the best solution between our two perspectives, is  
> simply to post your original comment, to my blog entry, and let it  
> stand.

I posted here (because I participate here); I did not post _there_
(having _not_ decided to participate in your or, frankly, any other
blog's comment feature).  It would not be polite on your part to copy
what I wrote to elsewhere without my saying it's OK.

So, don't do that.  It's really not nice.


> > So, be anti-corporate, left-wing, and anti-establishment if that
> > makes you happy -- hey, you're in Berkeley, after all -- but don't claim
> > that the Elder Geeks predominantly share your political and economic
> > views, as I greatly doubt that is so.
> 
> That has not been my experience at all, with the "older set", not just  
> from whom I've met personally, but also on various Internet discussion  
> groups. For the most part, they all tend towers [towards?] the
> moderate, and left of that.

I wouldn't doubt that you found what you claim:  For one thing, I rather
suspect there's a large element of selection bias in it.  I'll bet a lot
of those discussions were in major urban areas, predominantly in the Bay
Area, for starters, those being where throwing rocks at randomly selected 
adults is going hit targets that lean a bit left by nationwide standards, 
more often than not.  For another thing, they were people talking to
_you_, and you fairly exude 'I'm a lefty eccentric with a chip on my
shoulder and would be glad to talk about it', Zeke.  So, again,
selection bias.  The people _willing_ to unburden themselves to you (to
anyone, but specifically to you) on politico-economic matters would tend
to be heavily slanted towards being fellow freaks.  (I use the term with
affection, I hope you know.)

Knowing quite a lot of what you call Elder Geeks, it's difficult to
imagine having a conversation with most of them in which they would
willingly state their views on such things, and they sure as hell don't
volunteer same.  So, if you say you have taken the measure of some
non-zero number, I believe you, but do not believe either that you have 
creditable data on any significant number nor that those who chose to
speak with you are a valid sample.

And I really don't care if you attempt to hurl citations of Roszak,
Levy, and, for the love of Cthulhu, _Proudhon_.  You're talking about my
friends and acquaintances of some forty years, and, no matter how much
you try to use vague rhetoric about 'renegades', 'social misfits', and 'the
counterculture', you're simply factually wrong on your major point.


> I also question your conclusion that the ideological clash between FS  
> and OSS is trivial at this point.

That is _not_ what I said.  In fact, I said nothing at all about
'ideological clash', which is your obsession, not mine.  Shall we recap?

Richard has been going around since 1998 suggesting that OSI
fundamentally doesn't care about freedom, and cites as evidence the fact
that OSI representatives and proponents (according to him) don't _talk_
about freedom as an advantage of open source software, and instead
promotes its pragmatic advantages.  

Almost twelve years of OSI history have followed, during which OSI has
continued to maintain the same standards about what open source _is_
that FSF (and for that matter, Debian) has maintained for free software.
The groups' respective standards for what constitute open source and
free software are maps that describe the same territory of code and
licensing -- with the exact same concerns about non-royalty-free patents
and other encumbrances on software freedoms.

So, by any reasonable functional measure, they are two groups promoting
the exact same thing, promoting the exact same outcome, using differing
marketing programs.

You are approaching this subject like a classic ideologue[1], and therefore
you are acting like outcomes are irrelevant and the rhetoric is
everything.  I see things fundamentally differently:  It's all about
code and licensing, licensing and code.

Now, I've explained that matter twice.  I do not intend to go over it a
third time, so please pay attention to this one.


> At this point of our discussion, I have only done perusal examination  
> in regards to your challenges...

Plainly, especially given that you are attributing to me views I don't
hold and never articulated.  So, please do go have some coffee.

> ...and have found no real errors in my article. 

As I said, your error is a central and fundamental one of projecting
your own views onto others in the absence of supporting evidence.  There
is no point in attempting to vet small factual inclusions; it's the
basic thrust of the piece that's completely wrong.


[1] As suggested also by your treating free software and open source
as proper nouns, which they are not in the context in which you used
them -- a small but telling detail.

-- 
Cheers,                English is essentially a text parser's way of getting 
Rick Moen              faster processors built.
rick at linuxmafia.com    -- John M. Ford, http://ccil.org/~cowan/essential.html
McQ!  (4x80)