224 lines
11 KiB
HTML
224 lines
11 KiB
HTML
<!--startcut ==========================================================-->
|
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
|
|
<HTML>
|
|
<HEAD>
|
|
<title>The Linux Philosophy: Part I</title>
|
|
</HEAD>
|
|
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000FF"
|
|
VLINK="#A000A0"
|
|
ALINK="#FF0000">
|
|
<!--endcut ============================================================-->
|
|
|
|
<H4>
|
|
"Linux Gazette...<I>making Linux just a little more fun!</I>"
|
|
</H4>
|
|
|
|
<P> <HR> <P>
|
|
<!--============================================================= ======-->
|
|
|
|
<center>
|
|
<H1><font color="maroon">Free Philosophy: Part I</font></H1>
|
|
<H2>The Beauty of Doubt</H2>
|
|
<H4>By <a href="mailto:jwp@awod.com">J. W. Pennington</a></H4>
|
|
</center>
|
|
<P> <HR> <P>
|
|
Nearly every article that I have read in The Linux Gazette has
|
|
been technical and/or practical, so let me apologize if this
|
|
seems a bit "off topic." I am primarily an anthropologist, and as
|
|
such have always been a bit more inclined to write about things
|
|
more generally. Instead of the technical and practical, I want to
|
|
wax philosophic for a bit on the subject of free software
|
|
in general, and the Linux kernel in particular by "porting" a bit
|
|
of my philosophy of life to the computer. I have tried to write
|
|
these articles for both the newcomers to the Free Software
|
|
Community (FSC) as well as for those who have been around a lot
|
|
longer
|
|
than I. I will not waste time on the definition of free software
|
|
except to say that it is <I>free</I> as in <I>freedom</I>. For a
|
|
definition, I would have the reader visit the <A
|
|
HREF="http://www.gnu.org">GNU/Free Software Foundation</A>
|
|
website. The few facts that I intend to present will only be news
|
|
to those unfamiliar with free software, while the philosophy- at
|
|
least as seen from my vantage- will probably be new to all. My
|
|
idea is to present what for the lack of a better term I call The
|
|
Four Cornerstones to the Foundation of Free Software. These are
|
|
the four main things that I consider vital to the Free Software
|
|
Movement (FSM) in general, and to the Linux kernel in particular.
|
|
They are, in no particular order: <B>Doubt, cooperation,
|
|
non-control</B> (read: Freedom), and <B>rebellion</B>. I have
|
|
chosen to break these up into a series, because it would be a bit
|
|
long as one article. In each case, I will give an explanation of
|
|
what I mean by the idea and an example of how it pertains to the
|
|
FSM. I also offer the opportunity for discussion/argumentation if
|
|
anyone cares to explore "Free Philosophy" further. To those few I
|
|
invite the use of my email address at the beginning of these
|
|
articles.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
The first cornerstone that I will discuss is that of <I>
|
|
doubt.</I> It is a very powerful and useful word, unfortunately,
|
|
doubt has gotten a bad rap for no-good reason. When one thinks of
|
|
doubt, they are almost certainly consumed with thoughts of lies,
|
|
fear, and uncertainty. It is a dark word, and one that we rarely
|
|
use in association with someone or something that we love. This
|
|
is wrong. I believe that doubt, often pure, serious doubt, is
|
|
absolutely necessary for any true love and exploration of a
|
|
subject. I also think that if it were not for doubt- and the
|
|
admission of self-doubt- we wouldn't have free software.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
The FSC has a large share of doubt, and this has been one of its
|
|
main strengths. We doubt that software will work properly, we
|
|
doubt that it will work at all. We doubt that the code was
|
|
written efficiently, we doubt that it couldn't be better. Most
|
|
importantly we doubt that we, ourselves, have written it the best
|
|
way it could have been written. This doubt, about our product and
|
|
about ourselves, is the main strength of all free software. Do
|
|
not misunderstand me on this point. I am in no way suggesting
|
|
that we are "suspicious" of every program that we use, or that we
|
|
build binaries expecting them to fail. What I <I>am</I>
|
|
suggesting is that we do not consider the program "complete," in
|
|
the sense that the code is unable to be improved or changed.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
I'll give you two scenarios to illustrate my point:
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
<B>Scenario one:</B> I'm a guy who has been programming since I
|
|
was twelve. I <I>know</I> that I'm a damn good (if a bit
|
|
arrogant) coder. One day I finish a <I>big</I> program that is my
|
|
masterpiece. I cried when I compiled this baby. Hell, I almost
|
|
got divorced because of it! I have no doubt in my mind that this
|
|
program is perfect! I would immediately punch anybody who said
|
|
otherwise. So I market it. I box the binary and I ship it,
|
|
knowing that I'm going to be the next Bill Gates. Soon, I find
|
|
out that I <I>am</I> the next Bill Gates, after a fashion. My
|
|
program locks computers from here to New Jersey. Not all of them,
|
|
mind you, but enough to hurt sales and make people wonder. The
|
|
bad thing is that I can't figure out why. <I>Certain</I> people
|
|
didn't like it in the first place because it's <I>big.</I> Now,
|
|
nobody want's it because it's big <I>and</I> buggy. Even though I
|
|
tested the hell out of that program.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
What I don't know is that some geek in Indiana has figured it
|
|
out. He has two computers, and the program only crashes on one.
|
|
It's the Pentium II with the BX chipset on the motherboard. It
|
|
also crashes his friends LX chipset computer. I have a Pentium
|
|
Pro, but everyone wants a Pentium II these days, and they all
|
|
want that extra speed on the board. Suddenly people start
|
|
realizing that my product (and probably my programming) isn't
|
|
worth its salt. My masterpiece has failed.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
<B>Scenario two:</B> Same guy, same program, same long fight with
|
|
his wife. Is very sure that his program is perfect, but has just
|
|
enough doubt (read: wisdom) to know that there is always somebody
|
|
better. He has just enough doubt to realize that a program can be
|
|
written in so many ways that his chances of using the best one in
|
|
this situation are not 100% and his chances of using the only
|
|
good one for <I>every</I> situation are pretty near 0%. So he
|
|
offers his product as free software. He gives everyone the right
|
|
to use it and modify it, hoping that no-one <I>needs</I> too, but
|
|
knowing that many will do so anyway. Unfortunately, the program
|
|
creates a nightmare for him by crashing every computer from here
|
|
to New Jersey. In this scenario, however, there's a geek in
|
|
Indiana who figures out the problem <I>and</I> writes a patch.
|
|
Within weeks the patch has fixed the problem, and within months
|
|
his program is ported to Alphas and Macs, something that he
|
|
didn't even consider. His program is a success because he
|
|
realized that he wasn't the one and only "God of programming." He
|
|
had just enough doubt to temper his delusions of perfection.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
Granted, this is a very simplistic situation, but it does
|
|
highlight my main point. A lack of doubt, in every situation in
|
|
life, leads to problems. Admission of doubt allows the
|
|
possibility of another option, it is an opening, of sorts, to
|
|
different ideas. To have absolutely <I>no</I> doubt is to become
|
|
fanatical, and when one becomes fanatical, all options- all
|
|
doors- close. All possibilities for change, or consideration of
|
|
other methods are destroyed. Ironically, the fanatic's love for a
|
|
subject eventually becomes its downfall. In the long term, and
|
|
more radical situations, the very subject of the fanaticism is
|
|
itself destroyed, because all thought that improvement or change
|
|
could even be <I>necessary</I> are anathema to the fanatic's
|
|
beliefs. Eventually, the subject of the fanaticism becomes
|
|
something wholly different, and often counter, to its original
|
|
purpose.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
It's easy to see this closing of doors, options, and thought by
|
|
looking at the worlds of politics and religion. It is also easy
|
|
to see by looking at the world of proprietary software. Corel
|
|
recently released its version of WordPerfect 8 for Linux, and has
|
|
since been touting that the Linux community has a "desire for
|
|
proprietary software," both on it's website and in the press. The
|
|
company is so sure that its product is perfect, that it is just
|
|
what the Linux community wants, that it was patting itself on the
|
|
back just days after the program's release. I can only assume,
|
|
knowing what I know about people and bureaucracy, that it laughs
|
|
at any notion that the majority of the Linux community could
|
|
possibly be silly enough to consider its program <I>big and
|
|
buggy, </I> despite all the evidence to the contrary. The fact
|
|
that, in the Linux community, "proprietary" is often a derogatory
|
|
word, has never crossed their minds. My prediction is that they
|
|
will continue to measure their "success" by the number of
|
|
downloads, and not by the number of people who continue to use it
|
|
on a regular basis. I suspect that many (myself included)
|
|
downloaded it and almost immediately discontinued its use. The
|
|
likelihood of a decrease in users is increasing because of good
|
|
free software word processing programs and the continued growth
|
|
in the appreciation of existing ones such as Emacs.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
The FSC keeps doors open by holding on to that most important
|
|
resource: Doubt. We are never happy or completely certain that
|
|
something is "perfect," or that no-one else is able to improve on
|
|
something. If it works, it is used and respected, but if someone,
|
|
anyone, thinks that they could improve it- that's admired. We are
|
|
also protected from the follies of proprietary software in
|
|
another way. In the world of free software, KISS is the name of
|
|
the game. The idea is often to Keep It Small and Simple (or my
|
|
preferred version, Keep It Simple, Stupid). Here, the doubt is
|
|
that a program that is a behemoth, with a lot of unnecessary
|
|
fluff, is better than a small one which performs the same
|
|
function, often more reliably. This is inherent protection from
|
|
the delusions of grandeur that taint so many proprietary
|
|
programs. Free software tends to keep its feet on the ground,
|
|
instead of becoming the bloated dreams of a few hungry
|
|
individuals.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
Netscape recently learned of some of the benefits of the Free
|
|
Software Movement when it released its code. Apparently, within
|
|
days (perhaps hours) there was a group of Australian hackers who
|
|
improved the code, increasing its security. This event was not
|
|
only good for Netscape users, who have benefited from the
|
|
increased security, but to Netscape as well. The company now has
|
|
a better product to offer the consumers. The free software method
|
|
offers a no-lose situation, and it guarantees success. The reason
|
|
for this is the next cornerstone that I will be discussing:
|
|
Cooperation. I will return next month to expound on that idea
|
|
from the vantage point of my favorite linux soapbox.
|
|
|
|
<!--===================================================================-->
|
|
<P> <hr> <P>
|
|
<center><H5>Copyright © 1999, J. W. Pennington <BR>
|
|
Published in Issue 37 of <i>Linux Gazette</i>, February 1999</H5></center>
|
|
|
|
<!--===================================================================-->
|
|
<P> <hr> <P>
|
|
<A HREF="./index.html"><IMG ALIGN=BOTTOM SRC="../gx/indexnew.gif"
|
|
ALT="[ TABLE OF CONTENTS ]"></A>
|
|
<A HREF="../index.html"><IMG ALIGN=BOTTOM SRC="../gx/homenew.gif"
|
|
ALT="[ FRONT PAGE ]"></A>
|
|
<A HREF="./martinez.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/back2.gif"
|
|
ALT=" Back "></A>
|
|
<A HREF="./gm.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/fwd.gif" ALT=" Next "></A>
|
|
<P> <hr> <P>
|
|
<!--startcut ==========================================================-->
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
</HTML>
|
|
<!--endcut ============================================================-->
|