The world's premier and, in fact, only truly free software operating system.Ignoring that it doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny (there have been many "truly free software operating systems"), this brought to mind a spectacular feature of freedom: it abhors singularity. Indeed, monopoly positions are exceedingly rare in free systems.
Usually the only way to ensure a monopoly exists in a free society is to mandate it via government (or its equivalent) regulation. Very rarely do monopolies form on their own in free societies, and usually when they do form it is due to an abuse of the system and unless systemic corruption is maintained to support that situation (in which case, is it a free society?) then society tends to attack the monopoly resulting in either a curbing of its power or even a forced breakup. This creates a new period of opportunity and competition and the singularity is removed.
Sometimes a group comes up with an idea first, or figures out how to apply an existing idea in practical ways first, and due to this first-mover position initially monopolizes a given niche. In a free system this innovation is often very quickly replicated, or at the very least reacted to, by others and such monopoly is short lived. We can find endless examples in biological evolution as well as human technology for this exact process. This is also why the patent system came into place: this replication of good ideas in free societies can be so efficient that it makes it hard to profit from good ideas without some mechanism of protection.
(Aside: this implies that patent systems are only valuable when they reflect the real ratio of initial effort investment to reward rate.)
This is why most markets (economic, political, social, ..) have multiple competing parties. This competition drives everyone forward and reduces the risk associated with a single point of failure, which is socially beneficial. As a result, free societies tend to outpace societies with less freedom: by artificially enforcing singularities improvement incentives are reduced and risk associated with failure is driven up.
So whenever I hear someone say that their plan involves being "the only" thing in a free society, I assume they don't understand much about free societies. When this is coupled with adjectives such as "true" it starts to smell of fundamentalism.
Free software intrinsically exists in a free society: it is mandated in the licenses. The only ways around this are to artificially create singularities by monopolizing the talent pool (hiring all the developers) or keeping all decision making power in one central place that is guarded by veils of inscrutability and a lack of accountability. People who think this way are not the sort of people I would like to see directing free software; it is a recipe to curb the intrinsic freedom brought by free software.
Instead, we must embrace the sustainable and powerful forces of free systems, which includes diversity and competition and almost never being the "only" of anything that is usefully important.
10 comments:
I agree with what you say, but why not just say the name? Everyone will know anyway. Just seems like an unnecessary obfuscation.
"Only" as in, to my knowledge, no one else really seems to be trying. Not "only" as in we have any desire, interest, or means to prevent anyone else from doing so. Assuming malice isn't cool. This kind of reactionary anger on the internet gives our movement a really bad reputation. One of the biggest challenges we face is convincing people that we aren't a bunch of angry nut jobs. Yes it is sad that more partners don't consider collaborating to build free software operating systems. Why do you suppose that is? They are scared. Who wants to be attacked in such a way. Without provocation, without any merit whatsoever. Not me. Do you really think I'm advocating for GNOME becoming a monopoly and somehow preventing you from working on KDE? I would like to give you more credit than that. Any maybe you'd be kind enough to modify or moderate your post to reflect this.
Tearing down the efforts of others is something we as a free software community need to recognize as inappropriate behavior. The time has come to stop the squabbling. Stand together, stand by our work, bring free software into to the mainstream. Because everyone deserves freedom. Not just us geeks.
I hope those are values you wish to support as well. I urge you to recognize that we're all in this together. But should you disagree and wish to still attack those with honest intentions and those who are trying to increase the reach of Freedom - that is up to you. It is your Freedom. But I hope we all can take a bit more care in how and when we exercise it.
So can't this same thing be said about Mir? X has a monopoly over the display server and the same group that created X is making Wayland. So Mir is a way for this monopoly to be broken up. I am not trying to be disrespectful, I am just confused on why some monopolies are fine to disrupt but others (regardless of the level of software it is) is not OK specially if it is a business move.
@hoodedpirate.
Right or wrong, the way I see it, X is not a monopoly and won't be in the future because it is copyrighted by many multiple entities. On the other hand, although being Free Open Software at the moment, Mir being owned or copyrighted by a single entity (Canonical), it has the potential to become a monopoly. It is a huge difference and may be even worse.
@Gloucester J. Shrubhill: "why not just say the name?"
Because I don't want this to become a name-and-shame exercise, but an opportunity to learn as a community.
@Unknown: ""Only" as in, to my knowledge, no one else really seems to be trying"
Dozens are trying, and succeeding. Anytime you think you are the only ones doing something in a free system, you should take that as a clue that you're not aware of the other efforts out there.
"This kind of reactionary anger on the internet gives our movement a really bad reputation."
Dissent, let alone the accurate declaration of fact, is not reactionary anger. I fear you are reading emotion into what I wrote that simply does not exist.
I feel no anger towards you, I simply don't want the mythology espoused in that interview to take root in the Free software community.
"Do you really think I'm advocating for GNOME becoming a monopoly and somehow preventing you from working on KDE?"
Nope. :) I do think that there's the belief that, as you said just now, others aren't trying .. and that's simply not the case.
Belief in such uniqueness is not reflective of reality. Building myths is not helpful: it leads to false self-importance (which in turn leads to difficulty in accepting the wider ecosystem) and short-shrifts the work of others.
My main concern in this is those who use and promote free software getting some very wrong ideas about how the ecosystem works.
"Tearing down the efforts of others is something we as a free software community need to recognize as inappropriate behavior"
I agree, and one step might be to recognize efforts that are ongoing and stop the mythical belief that we are so amazingly special when we are actually co-actors in a free system.
"Stand together, stand by our work, bring free software into to the mainstream."
This has nothing to do with what I wrote. :)
"But should you disagree and wish to still attack those with honest intentions and those who are trying to increase the reach of Freedom - that is up to you."
You said that you're the only group working on free operating systems, I simply suggested that we should instead pay attention to reality. Erring on the side of fact is a good reason to disagree, and we must be able to disagree without it being described as an attack.
I absolutely desire for my statements and positions to be challenged with fair and open discourse. It is critical to maintaining balance and progress as it is a self-correction mechanism.
@hoodedpirate: "So can't this same thing be said about Mir?"
Yes, it can. My issue with Mir has *never* been that it exists or that Canonical should not be somehow allowed to create Mir.
My issues with Mir are quite separate from that, namely:
a) Canonical repeatedly misrepresented other projects in the process of promoting Mir. That is simply not acceptable. (This is broadly understood, and is the basis for libel/slander laws and accuracy in advertising laws)
b) given Mir now exists, and given the method by which it was produced (in secret, knowingly withheld from actors in the community who had previously assumed Canonical was still working with them), the rest of the community now is faced with a decision as to which of these options to support (and yes, supporting both is a valid choice). I advocate, based on reasoning I've presented elsewhere, that Wayland is the most sensible option. This is the free market of ideas in action.
So, no, my viewpoints on Mir have nothing to do with monopoly or freedom of action. :)
If you have something to say then say it, don't be subliminal about it.
Economically speaking, the only monopolies are the ones which are chartered through a government. "Letters Patent" is just such a designation.
Large businesses lobby for government regulation of their industries to prevent competition.
No one has ever been able to present a "natural monopoly" that occurred without govt support.
Liberty does indeed abhor sole-providers, unless that sole provider is capable of better meeting everyone's needs than anyone else. And even then, there are going to be malcontents, like us Linux users, who will not use even a good version of Windows, out of just plain orneriness.
@Unknown "X is not a monopoly and won't be in the future because it is copyrighted by many multiple entities"
When I said X is a monopoly I didn't mean it in the sense of one company ruling over it, what I meant was that for years X was the ONLY display server thus has no competition and a monopoly. (I know there was xfree86(?) at one point but it was eaten by X or died or something...)
"although being Free Open Software at the moment, Mir being owned or copyrighted by a single entity (Canonical), it has the potential to become a monopoly. It is a huge difference and may be even worse."
While I firmly believe that Canonical won't close source Mir (though I am constantly ready to eat my words), Mir will NEVER become a monopoly. GNU distros could and would not use it. And because of similar fears of Canonical's evil intentions, I think many other people will support Wayland and X even if Mir comes out on top. So there will not be a monopoly which is a good thing.
@Aaron Seigo "My issue with Mir has *never* been that it exists or that Canonical should not be somehow allowed to create Mir.....Canonical repeatedly misrepresented other projects......[and] withheld from actors in the community who had previously assumed Canonical was still working with them"
I can understand your fustration. At the very least, what Canonical did was disrespectful to other people in the FOSS community. He-who-shall-not-be-named hasn't made the situation any better with his comments defending the decision. That said, I am glad Mir exist. Since its announcement, there has been a bigger push to support Wayland. As an Ubuntu user, I feel like I am in a win-win situation regardless. I hope both projects and co-exist in a healthy fashion like Gnome and KDE.
Thank you both for your replies!
@michael: What do you think I'm saying "subliminally"? I didn't intend there to be any subtext to what I wrote, but rather meant what I wrote to be taken quite literally.
@hoodedpirate: " what I meant was that for years X was the ONLY display server thus has no competition and a monopoly"
It was the only fully featured, fully supported display server .. but certainly not the only one. There were things like NeWS back in the day, Fresco, or DirectFB. These were varyingly open or closed, had toolkit support or didn't, etc.
x.org was wildly successful and no alternatives ever made much headway, though, resulting in near 100% market share for x.org on the Linux/BSD desktop.
"I know there was xfree86(?) at one point but it was eaten by X or died or something"
x.org forked from xfree86, and xfree86 died because nobody worked on it sufficiently after that. so x.org became the defacto heir.
"While I firmly believe that Canonical won't close source Mir"
Which begs the question: why do they insist on reserving that right, then?
"And because of similar fears of Canonical's evil intentions"
Many who see no evil intentions do observe incompetence and inability to commit over the long haul to projects, which is just as off-putting.
"So there will not be a monopoly which is a good thing."
I agree :)
Post a Comment