Talk:The Cathedral and the Bazaar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Title
2 Microsoft
3 Speculation on Raymond's motivations
4 Stallman vs Raymond before CatB??
5 Criticisms of CatB
6 License
7 The pic's gone..?

[edit] Title

I'm curious - I haven't read this book - but who is the Accidental Revolutionary in the title? One would assume it is Torvalds, but the title reads like it is Raymond. kibibu 07:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely ESR (who has a habit of sometimes slightly over-estimating his worth). I think he is referring to the revolution that his essay caused (including the release of the Netscape source code) and his involvement in the birth of the open-source movement (as distinct from the existing free software movement). The expression could, of course, equally apply to Torvalds or Stallman. In fact, I cannot think of a revolutionary in any field who wasn't to some extent accidental. --Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 17:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, modesty doesn't appear to be his strong point. Given there was already a Free software movement, perhaps he's more of an accidental evolutionary. kibibu 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft

is the comment about microsoft relevent?

This text was removed:

Many people see Microsoft Corporation as the epitome of the closed source model, with all it's attendant reduction in software quality.

I am not at all a fan of MS software or their business practices (especially their business practices) either. But this seems like an unnecessary jab at Microsoft. Did Raymond really make such a statement in his essay? If he did, then the above statement needs to be changed to reflect this (and made NPOV). If he didn't, then this statement is off-topic and not appropriate (remember, this is an article about the essay, not about microsoft -- see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #6). maveric149

I thought I might get picked up on this one. I'm not going to put the sentence back, however, FWIW, I don't agree. Raymond did not make such a statement, but the statement is clearly editorial. What's more it is quite clearly defensible - many people do agree with the statement - read a little of Bruce Schneier and the Gartner Group. Even Bill Gates has admitted there are way too many security flaws and bugs in Microsoft's products, so it doesn't take too much to connect Raymond's essay with this effect. So the statement is NOT "off-topic" (whatever that is in an encyclopedia!). I disagree that it is inappropriate.

There is also the argument that to preserve a NPOV it is necessary to illustrate both sides of the case. I see that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #6 includes the text: But an article can of course report objectively on what advocates say. This is what I was doing. Please read the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not before quoting it.

I do agree that the sentence is a bit inflammatory (well, it inflamed you, didn't it :-)) and this serves to divert attention from the subject of the article.

BTW, I didn't comment on Microsoft's business practices, I commented on their software development methods, which is what the article is all about. Graham Chapman

no, the article is not about microsoft's business practices or software development models, it is about a paper that someone wrote (which is incidentally about software development models). i again assert that microsoft is not relevent to an encyclopedic description of the paper in question. yes, a wikipedia article can report objectively on what advocates say. that doesn't mean that in an article about glucose, i can insert an objective description of what people think about chedder cheese. further, illustrating "both sides of the case" is also irrelevent. there are not multiple viewpoints as to what "the cathedral and the bazaar" is. microsoft's practices are certainly not a viewpoint on the topic. i've less love for microsoft than the next guy, but that isn't any reason to compromise the quality of the wikipedia's articles. --jkominek

Jeez, angry people :-) 1. The paper is also about open vs closed source - chapter 6 even has the term Open-Source in the chapter title. 2. You can assert MS is not relevant and I can again disagree. Microsoft's practices are a darn good example of the closed source model. 3. There are multiple viewpoints here: there are exactly two, open source and closed source. 4. In preserving this alleged quality you remove illustrations which help the reader to understand the context of the article. Might as well remove all references to open source, Netscape and the text of the essay as well.

sorry, wasn't angry, just trying hard to get my point across. since it seems as though my point was made more clearly by others, below here, i'll not bother with my previously composed even longer response. (which will put in an appearance if this ever comes up again. :) --jkominek

I really hate defending microsoft (I avoid their software like the Plague and only use it when I am coerced into doing so -- such as work and school). But the article needs to describe what Raymond said without stirring up unnecessary hornets nests (which the removed statement obvisously has). If he didn't say it, then it is not relevent. The statement could be placed in another article, such as "Open vs. Closed Source" or whatever. maveric149

Not once does Microsoft get a mention in CatB. Bugger-all time is spent discussing proprietary software. Maveric is right. It's just not relevant in this case. --Robert Merkel

But the article needs to describe what Raymond said without stirring up unnecessary hornets nests (which the removed statement obvisously has). Yes, it's a good point. Sigh. I'll return to my primeval slime. Graham Chapman

[edit] Speculation on Raymond's motivations

I took out " Raymonds' choice of examples, however, may have been influenced by a desire to present Richard Stallman as out-dated." as it read like pure speculation. I thought the motivation in the choices was that two large projects had been so closed as to generate prominent and energy-sapping forks. Is there documentation otherwise? - David Gerard 10:46, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've just re-added a modified version noting that it is speculation, but at the time I hadn't read your comment here. (If you give me a few minutes, I'll post a proper response here.)Markvs 14:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Proper response: there were many better examples of Cathederal development, the BSD's being probably the most extreme - and they fostered two forks. ESR picked Stallmans two greatest pieces of software (although RMS no longer worked on GCC, it was still his crowning achievement). Why ignore BSD? using BSD and one of GCC or Emacs would have provided richer material for comparison, but ESR chose Stallmans two projects. For some reason.

ESR popularised the term "Open Source" as a replacement for "Free Software", he founded OSI which refers to FSF's advocacy as "ideological tub-thumping", and claims that OSI will be like FSF except without "the losing attitude and symbolism". In ESR's writings, he gives Stallman a compliment, and then claims that no one pays attention to Stallman anymore. ESR constantly tries to write Free Software and RMS out of the history books. I wasn't going to add a comment when I first saw the catb page, but when I noticed that you've added notes to all GCC and Emacs related pages about how they once epitomised the Cathederal style, I thought it's only right to mention that some people think ESR's choices were far from objective. Markvs 14:37, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though it'd add nicely to the statement if the "It is speculated" had a substantiating link or something.

I thought GCC/ECGS was actually a good example because it's such an important piece of the FOSS puzzle. When writing the EGCS article, I was reading old EGCS web pages and mailing lists ... they singed my eyebrows. NPOVing that lot was fun.

I do agree that using EMACS as an example is more likely to be taken as pique on Raymond's part (where he wrote lots of supporting extensions but couldn't get contributions into the main program). Although again, look at the XEmacs crew's web pages and opinions on why they couldn't work with the FSF - David Gerard 15:02, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

If no-one has a reference link for the "It is speculated" sentence, I'm inclined to delete it, or it'll just look like editorialising - David Gerard 15:00, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I'll have a quick look (later), but if I don't turn up anything, it could be replaced rather than just memory holed. If you want the page to be a collection of facts, then it should be mentioned that ESR was having code rejected by the Emacs maintainers, ESR's two chosen projects were the software high points of the man he set out to replace (even when BSD offered a more closed and more forked example), and I had a third fact worth mentioning but I've forgotten it now - must dash, will be back. Markvs 16:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't go down the "memory hole" - it's in the page history and here on the talk page.

You've admitted [1] your starting point is a personal bias against ESR. This is an article about the essay, not why ESR sucks. When "It is speculated" really means "I speculate", one needs to apply severe NPOV to oneself and back up every word so well that even ESR couldn't reasonably object - David Gerard 16:58, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've said that I don't like ESR but that doesn't mean that I'm editting these pages as an outlet for my dislike. I'm editting these pages because they lack info, and that's how wikipedia grows. Also, they appear to be written by people that only/mostly know of ESR through ESR's writings, ESR-related press releases, or via one google search. This is sub-par for wikipedia - but I don't have time for an edit war with you.

His choice of RMS's two pet projects for his examples of badly managed projects is more than a coincidence, it doesn't take a genius to spot that one. Here's an article with 6 interesting forks, emacs and gcc are among them, but BSD and libc are two other good ones: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/forking.html

Anyway, there's a trend here. You've spent three posts justifying the removal of stuff and pointing out character flaws in me, while I've used three posts to present info so that something can be added to the page. Try to improve on stuff rather than criticise - the latter is simple, but the former is what makes the encyclopedia better.

Anyway, here's my latest suggestion: move the "It's speculated..." sentence to a paragraph of it's own. (It can be the very last paragraph if you like.) And reword it to the facts-only version I mentioned above. Actually, if you leave it as is, I'll give this a go tomorrow, and you can see if you like it. Markvs 21:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but the "It's speculated ..." is still just YOU doing it. You're editorialising in the third person. Who speculates it? ~~Ciaran O'Riordan~~ user:markvs speculates it. Who else? You haven't listed them.

Can you back up your words to the point that even ESR couldn't reasonably object? That's the NPOV test. So far you haven't.

May I also suggest that your @fsf.org email address and focus on ESR vs the FSF may give you the appearance of editing from a somewhat partisan viewpoint.

ps: I personally think Open Source vs. Free Software arguments are essentially missing the point [2] [3]. I myself prefer "free software" as the freedom is the essential point to me. I had the inestimable joy of writing this page so as to write something acceptable to both the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front. (And in the process discovered that the Netscape Public License is Free Software [with problems] but not Open Source!)

You are adding "information" to Wikipedia, but doing it from such a strong POV that you're including information as if it's remarkable when it isn't, e.g. a book on Unix philosophy being released under an invariant license. That's a problem. Can you see any of what I'm talking about here? - David Gerard 21:20, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

(Actually Ciaran is a friend, but I am a "free software" person.)

For the third time: I think the sentence that starts with "It's speculated..." needs fixing, and should be replaced with facts. We're not getting anywhere here, so I'll edit the page to show you what I'm talking about. Revert it or improve it if you want. Markvs 22:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

OK :-) - David Gerard 22:24, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that strikes me as much better supported - David Gerard 20:55, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stallman vs Raymond before CatB??

"Richard Stallman, a man with whom Raymond had many heated arguments ("Free Software" Vs. "Open Source" etc.)."

These arguments happened after the essay. But the para seems to imply they were part of why Raymond picked GCC and Emacs as examples, so that example doesn't work at all. Anyone got one that does? Evidence of personal animosity between ESR and RMS before CatB? Else the sentence should be cut - David Gerard 10:26, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Further on this point, from [4]:

"In fairness, from watching a great number of ESR v. RMS arguments, it's a good idea to be skeptical of the claim that ESR said something about RMS, or that RMS said something about ESR. The _actual things_ that they say about one another and about one another's positions are a lot milder than the versions that get repeated by some flamewar participants. RMS has partisans who hold a lot of animosity for ESR, and ESR has partisans who hold a lot of animosity for RMS. What they actually say about one another is generally that they have an important tactical (and philosophical) disagreement; and they will not deny having respect and gratitude for one another's contributions. And I certainly don't think that they take their disagreements personally, although fans of either one will sometimes try to make it look more like a bitter personal rivalry. As far as I know, ESR's actual statements on this point (as contrasted with what he might be thought to have said) are more limited and politer, and extend to saying that he (ESR) is a better salesman (to business?) than RMS, which is true, and which RMS is not interested in disputing. They will then disagree over whether or not this is important or desirable."

That is: their partisans often use them as proxies. I suggest that without some firm evidence, this article should not risk doing this - David Gerard 15:26, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

(re: Evidence of personal animosity between ESR and RMS before CatB? Else the sentence should be cut)

no no no no no no. Stop cutting info from other contributors. If a sentence is not completely accurate, make it accurate. In this case, (if your theory is true,) maybe that sentence should be changed to "ESR went on to disagree with many of RMS's opinions" or "this was the first of many public disagreements between R + E". Or something to that effect, it could be worded better but I'm just giving an example, I have no time - so I mightn't see any responses to this post for a while, but PLEASE, add to wikipedia, don't take away from it. (I'm Markvs but I've forgotten my password, so I made this account). Georg Bush 01:16, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it." It's been near three weeks now and it's still unjustified. You're trying to make an assertion your sentence simply doesn't justify. If the sentence that doesn't in fact support the assertion is taken out, then you're editorialising. Has no-one else in the world except you raised this possibility? Do you really have no references? In that case this is original research and not a candidate for mercy.

I've commented out the paragraph in question until it can actually be substantiated. - David Gerard 12:28, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of CatB

We need these documented. I don't mean personal editorialising (as above) - I mean documenting famous criticisms of CatB and its ideas, and criticisms of those criticisms. The First Monday paper (even if it was crap) and reactions to it should be covered, for example. Any others? Famous criticisms by others are needed. (I have an urge to get this article through WP:FAC.) - David Gerard 11:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] License

The work seems to be licensed under an Open Publication license, not a creative commons license.

"Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Open Publication License, version 2.0." It is. ABoerma 21:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)