Life’s too short for partisanship
Ugh. The passage of the U.S. health care bill has exposed all that is wrong in politics. I don’t care which side of the aisle you’re on, the whole process was ugly, and both sides contributed. I don’t believe that positive things come from negative processes.
Which is just one reason that we, in the open-source world, really should do better. But we don’t. If there’s a contentious bunch, it’s the open -source community. Whether it’s Gnome vs. KDE, MySQL vs. Postgres, Ubuntu vs. RHEL (or SLES), etc., we seem to want to fight rather than discuss.
It gets old.
It even gets old to have this constant firefight going with Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, or whomever the enemy-du-jour happens to be. It’s technology, people. It’s not religion. (Not that we should be fighting over religion, either, but I digress….)
Ever since joining Canonical, I’ve been making a concerted effort to think and write positively about my competitors. And people have noticed: I get criticized all the time for writing nice things about Red Hat, for example, as if a) there’s no possible way I can mean it and/or b) even if I believe it I should never talk openly about it.
I don’t understand either point.
Canonical is a partner with Red Hat (along with IBM, Oracle, Intel, and others) on the development and advancement of Linux. When it does something right, even as a competitor, why not acknowledge it?
If Microsoft warms up to open source, why not share some plaudits? And even when it gets things wrong, surely it’s better to politely critique rather than spew invectives?
I’m not suggesting that I’m a saint in this. And I’m certainly not asking the Ubuntu world to go milque toast on competition. I’m not in this for second place.
But we don’t need to be partisan whiners and windbags along the way toward total world domination. Let the politicians beat each other up. We should be bigger than they. More like a community.
March 24th, 2010 at 5:55 am
I *cannot believe* that a CEO of a large software coupmany could be that naive.
Microsoft in no way is “warming up to open source” - where did you ever get such a notion?
Embrace
Extend
Extinguish
… perhaps you think that the phrase is so oft-repeated for no reason?
Microsoft is only interested in getting what they call Open Source to come do it in Windows, and quit playing with that dirty Linux kid.
Let’s see Microsoft show us exactly what are the alleged 250 violations of their “Intellectual Property”, so that it can be dealt with in the open, in public, in a forthright and direct manner. Perhaps then they can be considered to have some shred of credibility - up till now, they use the non-publication as an extortion threat to force small companies to pay them off, and to try to establish a kind of non-legal set of market precedents.
I personally have been suspicious of Ubuntu/Canonical for a while now, partly because of the decision to include Microsoft “Intellectual Property” in the Ubuntu software distribution.
Now I am certain to avoid it at all costs.
March 24th, 2010 at 8:43 am
Hi Matt,
You really have a very deep misunderstanding in one specific aspect of this: you want to compete with Microsoft, Microsoft does not want to compete with you. There is a subtle point here, they will destroy you if they know they can get away with it. That’s different to competing and everyone in the FOSS community knows Microsoft’s intentions, except maybe… you.
While I always enjoy your writings this seems to be your one blind spot where you refuse to call a spade a spade. You’re talking about partisanship but you’ve missed the boat. It has nothing to do with partisanship, it is acknowledging that Microsoft’s intentions are to destroy it’s enemies, not beat them through superior products and marketing (i.e. competition). Microsoft will NEVER compete with you if it can avoid it by destroying you. Microsoft holds a knife behind it’s back with one hand while the other is extended for a handshake accompanied by a broad smile. 25 years of Microsoft behaviour supports what I just said, yet you refuse to believe me.
So the anger that may be directed towards your “pro” Microsoft writings are not because no one can accept that we should all just live together in a commune with group hugs it is simply that these, highly intelligent people, are outraged that you refuse to acknowledge Microsoft’s destructive history. And due to their destructive history which has not changed (they have just been a bit smarter at hiding it) we can very safely predict, with a high level of certainty, their future behaviour.
So while you can speak freely about Microsoft as is your right, don’t be surprised when this explodes in your face. The people in the FOSS community are a principled lot and they will not accept someone’s writings that pretend that Microsoft’s past is not littered with hundreds of thousands of corpses. If Microsoft were a dictator it would be Robert Mugabe.
But lets pretend that’s not so… let’s pretend they really deep down inside just want to be loved…
March 24th, 2010 at 10:17 am
I think you guys are *completely* missing the point of my post: it wasn’t to suggest some wonderful kumbayah moment with Microsoft. It was to suggest that the partisanship (that your comments reveal) is not helpful. I compete (hard) against Microsoft. That doesn’t mean I have to be a jerk about it. That’s all.
Partisanship blinds us to competition and instead goads us into railing against *everything* someone else does, simply because they’re someone else. That doesn’t help me, as a competitor. It doesn’t help customers. It helps no one.
So, please quit with the knee-jerk “Microsoft is evil” comments. They don’t support your cause, and they don’t help Canonical compete. They just make us look silly.
March 24th, 2010 at 10:47 am
This is a funny response Matt. Because you don’t agree with us we’re missing the point? Maybe you missed something?
Okay so let’s go with what you say, alright. Name for us these wonderful things that Microsoft have done. And then give us the opportunity to discuss exactly what the intentions and consequences of these wonderful things from Microsoft are. I will get the ball rolling:
1. Silverlight which you love as a product. My opinion: probably an awesome product, consequence - massive lock in. Al Fresco access into Silverlight is awesome hey?! MS are so open. If Al Fresco becomes a real threat you will be amazed at how fast Al Fresco stops working with Silverlight. You want to argue that one? Let’s be realistic here, if Al Fresco became a real threat (just face it, you’re not even on the radar yet) MS would stomp on you so hard your whole family tree would shake.
2. OOXML - do I need to comment?
Okay so I got the ball rolling. Let’s stop talking in these great big sweeping generalities. Give us some specific examples to discuss. I am here, I’m all for it. But to say that Microsoft should be acknowledged when they do something “nice” or something along those lines is actually whining.
I would like to return the compliment you paid me in your post: you’re whining and you’re a windbag. Why can’t you just accept our viewpoints and live happily with us Matt? If you don’t it’s because you’re a whining windbag that is missing the point. It’s not so nice when those comments are directed back at you now is it?
March 24th, 2010 at 10:50 am
I’m sorry if my response was terse. I’m not suggesting that Microsoft is a saint. I’m suggesting that “partisanship” is a *manner* of responding to its threat, a rancor, that doesn’t help us compete. It just makes us angry.
I’ve had enough of anger lately, watching my government tear itself apart and in the process completely overlook its constituents. There is a way to disagree and compete that doesn’t involve that partisanship, that rancor.
That’s all I was saying.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:08 am
OK Matt, let me strip my comment down to this:
Let’s see Microsoft show us exactly what are the alleged 250 violations of their “Intellectual Property”, so that it can be dealt with in the open, in public, in a forthright and direct manner. Perhaps then they can be considered to have some shred of credibility.
Do you think it is unfair to ask this?
March 24th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Hi Matt,
I agree with you regarding the healthcare debate but to transfer that over to the MS vs. FOSS debate is simply not a workable transference.
Also partisanship can be highly destructive. But at the same time what does it mean? It means taking sides. I know which side I’m on in this debate. I also have made an informed decision in this regard. I don’t hate Microsoft for the joy it beings me I hate Microsoft for the incredible destruction they have wreaked in my industry, usually in the name of innovation or good intentions. I will not accept this. I will never be nice to Microsoft until I have actual proof that they have changed their ways. There is no such proof currently and there is lots and lots of proof of their destruction. This does not mean I am incapable of changing my opinion, it simply means that I will not do so now and I don’t see it happening in the near future either.
My viewpoint is that Microsoft is a supremely destructive force in our industry. They have also painted a target on the back of all FOSS but mainly GNU/Linux. I find this totally unacceptable and they don’t compete they use under handed tactics to weaken their opponents, they do not use normal market competition to win. If you want to call this partisan, then you’re totally free to do so and I will even accept, call me partisan. If you want to call my highly opinionated, negative comments about Microsoft divisive, then you’re also free to do so. I will change when I have proof that Microsoft have changed and not before and also not when someone asks me to be nice because they’re tired of all the nastiness.
Bring on the proof and I think you will be shocked at how capable the FOSS community actually is in changing their opinions.
Are people angry? Yes they are. We’re talking about a group of people that have been mistreated by a large company for a long time. I think they have every right to be angry. So when someone starts espousing the virtues of Microsoft or even just say that we should talk to them in a nicer way, they’re going to get it in the neck from a lot of angry people. So instead of trying to change us, just accept that that’s how it is. I don’t expect you to change your opinions for me, and I expect the same treatment from you.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:15 am
It is important to avoid bickering with open source projects. Talking can improve things. However projects lacking ethics can and have been abandoned.
Microsoft - that is a different ball game. If there is a tipping point, once the company has reached the stage becoming the walking dead, to be close to them just as they are starting to flail is to simply put oneself in harms way. Whether they are drowning or not, my reading of the comes transcripts seems to indicate *they* think they are.
But the first point you made should not be lost. Congratulating those improving Linux is commendable. Please keep it up.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:20 am
I apologise but I am busy laughing at this whole scenario. Your blog post is entitled “Life’s too short for partisanship” whereupon you attack the forces of divisiveness. I don’t think you expected this post to be so divisive did you? lol.
(I am not being sarcastic here, I really think this is funny.)
March 24th, 2010 at 11:21 am
@Yo Ma Ma: No, I fully support that (and always have). I think FUD of any kind, and certainly of this kind, is destructive. Microsoft never supports its allegations, and it is 100% wrong to do so.
@Martin: I actually think, while Microsoft remains a threat (and a big one - see my comment above), there are some potentially more pernicious ones. Data lock-in is a much bigger threat than Office file-format lock-in, for example, and Microsoft is hardly a player there (despite its best efforts to be such).
Constant vigilance, yes, but we can be civil about it. Not Milque toast. But civil.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:22 am
@Martin: Yes, the irony was starting to dawn on me, too.
March 24th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your comments. I agree about civility. I do get annoyed when people label passionate debate as zealotry or destructive in-fighting. While there is a lot of the latter there is also a lot of the former. We should focus on the passionate debate and ignore the zealotry and in-fighting. In my opinion giving the negative stuff any attention whatsoever just encourages it. At the same time passionate debate is incredibly important for furthering the aims of FOSS. If everyone became apathetic and uninspired the FOSS community would die a sudden and quiet death.
I also agree about the data lock in issue. This is very important but I think it would be quite a surprise to many if we discovered how much current information exists within the MS document formats that might become inaccessible in the future versus how much information is currently in the cloud. I think MS documents will still have the lead by an overwhelming number. So while the data lock in issue in the cloud is something important it is also an argument, partially, for the future. Sure a lot of data is already in there, but I think MS documents still hold more data by orders of magnitude. Imagine if someone could legislate that all document contents have to be accessible in the future? This would make a massive difference to the freedom of information.
March 24th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Wow Matt, you’ve been a lot more straightforward since you’ve joined canonical. I considered it to be a hostile/risky position, but I think this article speaks about as straightforward a truth as can be mentioned and speaks very positively - I can see why they want you as COO. All I can say is good luck, and do well, for all of our sakes.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Partisanship - which I think you are using as a substitute for “incivility” or simple “rudeness” is counterproductive to the extent that it distracts us from the battle.
The lawsuit against TomTom? The 241 places where “Linux” violates something?
It is much better to stick to the facts. But those create problems too.
If Microsoft tomorrow decides that something in Mono or d-flat violates a patent and sues someone - probably not Canonical, but someone weak, what will you say and recommend?
(Mono is used by Tomboy, which is the only note sharing Ubuntu one supports)
I have a copy of the FAT32 specification directly from microsoft and on its first pages it contains a covenant not to sue over any patents required to implement it, and it contains the complete specification and description for long file names. What did they sue TomTom over?
They signed up with Sun, then polluted Java with Windows-only stuff which violated the agreement. I don’t want them touching anything in Linux.
The emails about purposely crippling things for DR-DOS and plans to plant logic bombs to crash Lotus so they could sell more office.
I could write a book. But most of it is online, and much at groklaw.net in searchable form.
Any technology they produce is likely to contain a patent mine which they will detonate after it becomes pervasive enough for them to benefit.
Isn’t that enough reason not to use any of their technology?
It isn’t partisanship, incivility, or even an insult to bring up their past history of lying, stealing, defrauding and corrupting. Or to warn others that they cannot be trusted except to do something evil as it seems to be part of their corporate nature.
Such might all sound like mere partisanship, but only because they assume you know the history.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Careful tz, you’re starting to sound like a whining windbag that misses the point!
Sorry Matt, I couldn’t stop myself from having a dig.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Well said.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:07 am
Decisiveness does get old. Which begs the questions why did Canonical decide to include Mono in Ubuntu and why did Canonical decide to hire from Microsoft?
These are two actions Canonical has taken that are guaranteed to create division and unrest in the community. Canonical must have know it would happen. Yet Canonical for whatever reason went a head anyway. Those decisions might be good or they might be bad. Time will tell.
Now what is really getting old is hearing about people from companies like Canonical who exploit the benefits of free open source software and the various open source communities complaining about those communities voicing their objections to Microsoft or Apple or IBM or Google or Mono or whatever else they choose to complain about.
Open source communities have always been very vocal. There has always been room for descenting voices and debate. So if you choose to do something the community does not like. The community will let you know. Even if you do not want them to. It’s not the Microsoft board room filled with yes men. It’s a free and open community.
Which is why the presence of something like Mono is so controversial. It represents a threat to freedom and openness. Microsoft has well documented history of hurting it’s partners. By adopting Mono and hiring from Microsoft, Canonical are treading on dangerous ground.
Which is of course Canonicals prerogative.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:08 am
Bleah: Decisiveness should be divisiveness. But that gets old too.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:19 am
“Why can’t we all just get along” (quote is possibly old, but was used in a Rodney Dangerfield movie at one time, as he was taking a beating)
So Matt, welcome to the GNU/Linux community in a big way. But it seems you want to be the “Rodney Dangerfield” of the GNU/Linux community. While you are a recent convert from running Mac OS X and now to Ubuntu, since your new job, still I think you will do ok. You seem to be a team player, and will do what Mark asks, is what it looks to be. I have great respect for Mark, he put his own money into Ubuntu to make it work. The Ubuntu distro has come a long way indeed. Notice I did not not call it a community distro. Its not really, the end result is Mark makes the decisions, example the buttons on the wrong side debate. But thats ok, as Mark is the one putting all the bucks (maybe its pounds) into the distro, not his users. But he did go against the wishes of his users, wish is not always a good thing to do. The thing here, is Matt, while your opinion maybe your own, it cannot deviate to far from that of Mark. Most likely you and Mark of are a very close opinion, and that is part of why you have got the job.
So I have to wonder, first there is Mono, and then there is more Mono. Sure, I can Mark’s point, patents do not worry him. Cannonical is not in a country with software patents, so no problems right? Well, TomTom, was threatened by Microsoft to have an injunction on their products to sell in the USA, so they were not beyond the reach of software patents either. What if your servers could be blocked by the courts here, and your distro made illegal here and offices here closed? A bit far fetched probably. Then there was Neteller, a company that made money transfers to online poker players, the US DOJ arrested former executives of Neteller when they set foot on St. Thomas, so do not think that the US courts are beyond having any power over Cannonical. Microsoft would not do anything to hurt Linux or Cannonical, would it?
Its very doubtful that Microsoft would hurt Cannonical, as it seems to want to partner with you. Mark seems to be moving in this direction. First he is friendly with Mono, even though RMS and others have warned about the dangers. Next there is the change in the default search engine to Yahoo, paid of course. And lets just say what Yahoo really is, its Microsoft Bing with the Yahoo name. And the money is coming from Yahoo to do this, which they got in turn from Microsoft. And now there is your post and how we the community should be nicer to Microsoft, seems a little odd.
A lot of companies before have partnered with Microsoft, can think of a few. IBM, Novell, Linspire, Xandros, Turbolinux, SCO, to name a few, and notice that a few of these are gone now. Does Mark really want to go in a direction that his users will “hate” so bad? It is as you say, many really do “hate” what Microsoft has done, and do not want to be connected with that company in any way shape or form. Not saying this to cast dirt on Ubuntu, only that I worry the direction that Mark is taking.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:37 am
I wouldn’t read too much into anything we’ve done with Mono. (I’m the new guy, so wasn’t here when it was decided.) And I certainly wouldn’t extrapolate from that to some grand partnership between Canonical and Microsoft. Trust me: there’s plenty of suspicion of Microsoft and its motives around here.
My point wasn’t that we should let our guard down. At all. It was that we can disagree without being jerks about it. Watching the healthcare “debate,” it was clear to me that nothing really positive comes from throwing angry bile around.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:59 am
Matt,
Nice reply by the way, although the bing (yahoo) part was not addressed, which I think some people will not like when that happens. But again, that is Mark’s decision. Ubuntu is not a democracy, as most distro’s are not either. Also, my joke about Rodney Dangerfield, I hope you did not take offense, as he was one of my favorite’s. Sometimes, how we write can seem harsh on the surface, and even full of hate, but you see in this case its about being concerned. A lot of effort, time. and Mark’s money has been put in Ubuntu, and moving closing to Microsoft is not without risks.
As far as writing about MS, I disagree. We need to educate people factually what they have done. They are a convicted monopolist, that have used unethical illegal business practices. While I can now buy a Dell laptop online with Ubuntu on it, I cannot go down to the local store and buy one here with anything but Windows on it. Neither can I get a refund on that Microsoft tax here in the USA. Some say that even if Ubuntu were on the laptops that MS would still make the OEM’s pay the windows tax on that sale, because of Non Disclosure Agreements (which are illegal, but try to prove them).
When I can go down to Best Buy, Office Max or Depot, and either buy a laptop without Windows and the Tax (laptop minus the windows price) with either a blank drive or linux on it, or even a way to get an easy refund without jumping throught hoops, THEN, AND ONLY THEN, will I lighten up on Micro$oft, and stop telling the world plus dog, of their misdeeds.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
This post surprises me a little, but I certainly welcome the message.
In reading Matt over the years, I got the impression he was more focused on opposing Microsoft that actually supporting OSS, and that was why he was quick to praise IBM’s and Apple’s proprietary products as alternatives to Microsoft ecosystems.
Negativity and mud-slinging is never a good approach. I agree that partianship is bad for the country, and I also agree that negative railing is bad for the FOSS community.
March 25th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
I always compared MS with a venomous snake and no matter what Matt Asay or anyone else says, I will not change my mind. I am a Kubuntu user and it won’t be long before I jump to another disto (PCLinuxOS) with KDE 4.x.
To be safe from it, you don’t play with it because that certainly will kill you. You don’t avoid it and let it be in the neighborhood, because one day it will sneak up on you to deliver a deadly bite. The only way to be certainly safe from its wrath and deadly bite is to leave it with a paper thin head.
In spite of the numerous vicious attacks by MS’s, FOSS withstood all of it and maintained its progress and proliferation. FOSS doesn’t need MS cooperation or participation, so why do we need to be partisan with a ruthless enemy?
What it is puzzling to me is why Canonical needs to be partisan with MS? I guess we will find out in time.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Mr. Asay, I appreciate your position on Microsoft as expressed in the comments (be vigilant but not uncivil)
But it’s easy to see where that position wasn’t what people got from the original post.
“If Microsoft warms up to open source, why not share some plaudits? And even when it gets things wrong, surely it’s better to politely critique rather than spew invectives?”
That sounds awfully like *not* being vigilant. Especially the implication of “gets things wrong”, which is that Microsoft has no bad intentions, if it does something bad it would just be “getting things wrong”. Microsoft opposing Open Source isn’t “getting things wrong”, it is a necessary implication of Microsoft’s whole commercial position and business model.
So I’m glad you modified your stance in the comments. But I can see why you went a little overfar. Looking at the US political situation, seen right now specifically on the health care issue but not limited to that, it is starting to seem as if you guys are headed for civil war or something. And this is not so much a matter of the behaviour of the actual legislators as it is a broader issue of political and media culture, and the utter cynicism of corporate efforts to gain influence. If one takes Obama, for instance, the man’s general policy approach is so moderate in terms of the US understanding of valid policy options that he is practically invisible; he is hardly the agent of change that his campaign rhetoric invoked. And yet large media outlets and well-financed political groups regularly demonize him as some sort of dictator turning the United States upside down, coming closer and closer to calls for violent revolution. It seems clear that this campaign would be taking place no matter what Democrat occupied the White House, and no matter what his policies were. Those who finance these efforts know perfectly well that Obama and the Democrats in general bear no resemblance to the caricatures they create–it’s as much marketing as Obama’s “change you can believe in” was. What’s frightening and dispiriting is not so much that a great deal of marketing is being used to push the political agenda to gain wealthy commercial interests short-term financial gains. That’s normal and has been going on forever. What’s frightening is that the marketers currently seem to think nothing of creating a climate of violence, fear and indeed potential civil war, a climate they are unlikely to be able to control, merely to pressure legislators into giving them short term financial gains. That goes beyond normal cynicism and short-sightedness, and I am glad it is provoking your sort of reaction, even if in your weariness you go a bit easy on Microsoft.
March 26th, 2010 at 2:57 am
Typo correction,
“What it is puzzling to me is why Canonical needs to be partisan with MS? I guess we will find out in time.”
Should be:
“What it is puzzling to me is why Canonical needs to be bi-partisan with MS? I guess we will find out in time.”
March 26th, 2010 at 4:26 am
Easy said.
Dealing with MS is like having the good fortune to live next to the class bully- and there’s plenty of examples listed already. I don’t think Linux ever aspired merely to be as good as their product, and we’ve seen what happens when they “help” others. What we’d like is the freedom to play in the sandpit without a WOMBAT with a bulldozer sitting next to us.
For that matter, I don’t know that most OSS users really want to waste oxygen talking about them. There’s too much to do, and if they got out of the way it’d be a lot easier. That’s the only reason we take any notice at all: they’re the elephant in the coderoom (sitting on the keyboard).
Within the Linux community, though, what’s the problem with a disagreement? A bit of argument goes a long way to clarifying issues, and it’s an awful lot easier to figure out problems when people talk about them. Sure, some individuals seem to have forgotten their manners at times, but at least they’re (mostly) listening.
One difference is that within the community it’s “Why do that?”; MS appears to be more interested in saying “You can’t do that”. Anyone tries that in Linux, people start talking about forking.
March 29th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Hi Matt,
I understand what you are saying. Partisanship can create a lot of anxieties in people. However, partisanship can also be very important.
Without partisanship, I lot of very important injustices would have never been addressed. How would have slavery been addressed without partisanship. In fact, the fear of partisanship at the creation of the USA delayed the inevitable process for fear of losing unity against the English Crown.
Similarly, the civil rights issues in the 60s could only be advanced through partisanship on the issue. Most of the times, without clear expression of alternatives, no real changes are achieved.
However, the changes or possibility of changes is what creates fear in people. The majority of people have a negative expectation in regard of changes. Hence the anxiety levels
create a level of communication that is subjective and emotional
instead of objective and rational.
I believe this is the same in the FLOSS world. The majority of IT is still based on a business model based on protectionism via patents and copyrights. Most people cannot see sustainable business models in an environment that accepts that rights are not solely assigned to the authors, but there are also rights assigned to users, contributors and humanity overall.
Unfortunately, in some of these issues there is no compromise. We can either live in a free world for everybody, or we have slavery for at least some. Similarly, we the freedom of software is something that either can be enjoyed by all or by nobody.
Therefore, I agree with you that a lot of statements and communication that are made, miss the point and show more irrationality of tribal wars than changing the issues or even solving them. However, that does not mean that those issues do not exist and must be clearly identified. In this way I find the Health Care Debate in the USA very refreshing. Most political systems in the Western world today miss the clearly distinctions of the two sides of the argument. If you look at the election campaigns in the UK at this point, there are no real differences between the major parties. There are just shades of the same.
In contrast, the partisanship in the USA show clearly two schools of thought. Two entirely different ways of solving a problem, in the same way as proprietary software and FLOSS are two distinct ways of solving a problem.
I think, we need more, not less of such clear differences. Surely, our discussions should be more civil, and we should try with all the passions involved try to stay more on the objective level of the differences.
The problem is when the other side is prohibited to talk and hence the ideas are not listened too. I believe if I understand you right is what you really concerned about. Everybody is just shouting and nobody is listening. Proprietary software/Music/Film etc are drowning out the ideas of FLOSS/creative commons etc through lobbying and bribery. On the other side, passionate idealists do not allow enough debate how a maximum of freedom can be combined with the necessities of providing for someone’s family.
Therefore, I agree with you. We need more civility. We also need to listen more. However, we also need to understand when certain important values cannot allow any compromise. We need to re-learn how to have civil debates while we have partisanship. We need to stop reducing partisanship to mere tribalism.
March 31st, 2010 at 4:29 pm
txwikinger, I really believe you’re missing the point. The problem isn’t taking sides and standing up for what you believe. The problem is mud-slinging.
You can advance your ideals without childish bickering.