«

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 15:27:57 -0700, Geoff Gerrietts <> wrote:

>Quoting John J. Lee ():
>> (Aahz) writes:
>>
>> > In article <Kv->,
>> [...]
>> > OTOH, Perens is also (like me a self-described asshole. When I saw
>> > him at the Waterside Conference earlier this year, he basically claimed
>> > that only assholes could make significant progress in the Open Source
>> > community.
>> [...]
>>
>> Why?
>
>I think the sentiment is just a variant on the "politicians always
>lie" theme. Open source is socio-political, and so it's the
>charismatics that succeed. "Asshole" is one manifestation of a strong
>personality.
I don't believe that. IMO the most obnoxious manifestations of "asshole"-ness
are due to *weak* personalities using powerful positions to over-compensate ;-/

An assertive maverick is not necessarily an "asshole" in my book, though
those threatened by such a personality will often be quick with that label.
(Note that assertiveness != bullying. Bullying is a hallmark behavior of "asshole"-hood).

Regards,
Bengt Richter

(Aahz) wrote:

>OTOH, Perens is also (like me a self-described asshole. When I saw
>him at the Waterside Conference earlier this year, he basically claimed
>that only assholes could make significant progress in the Open Source
>community. Linus and Guido are obvious counter-examples in some
>respects, but as you point out, they're not really interested in a
>spokesmodel position.

This a dangerous meme so I'll try to expose its working mechanism.

First two related forms:

"Thanks to microsoft which squished all the competition on the
software market, we now have standards and all computer programs are
compatible with the other surviving computer programs"

"Firing people is hard, nobody wants to do the dirty work, so we need
people who don't care about other people to be in charge of big
companies and accordingly they should be paid top salaries"

Excuse my English, but I still hope the readers get the general idea
behind those and other expressions of this very dangerous meme.

The general working mechanism seems to be to accept the current state
of affairs as unavoidable and to deny the possibility that things
could have gone different. Since the "what if" question is paramount
to all progress, this is an effective way to inhibit the creative and
critical capabilities in the human brain.

Countermeasures:

Since the meme takes different forms all the time one could create a
pattern recognition scheme to identify it and generate antimemes using
a template. For example a derived antimeme for the microsoft form
would be:

-If microsoft hadn't stalled progress in software development by
hiding the algorithms used for their software we would *now* be there
where we will be in twenty years.

An antidote to the antisocial big company leader:

-If people at the top are enriching themselves without any
consideration for those who they should be leading, people lower in
the hierarchy will take this as a role model. One ends up with a lot
of people that don't care.

Anton

(Anton Vredegoor) writes:

> -If microsoft hadn't stalled progress in software development by
> hiding the algorithms used for their software we would *now* be
> there where we will be in twenty years.

I think that Microsoft has stalled progress, not by hiding any
worderful technology that they might have, but by making the vast
majority of users accept sub-mediocrity as the norm.

They have run a hugely successful advertising campaign for the whole
concept of sub-mediocrity; the desire for quality is what has
suffered. By doing so, they have greatly influenced the direction of
progress and of the meaning of "better". In the Microsoft mindset
"better" means that the bouncy paperclip moves more smoothly, and can
now do the cha-cha as well as the samba ... while it remains perfectly
acceptable to have to reboot the computer each time you want to
install a new piece of software.

Jacek Generowicz <> wrote:

> (Anton Vredegoor) writes:
>
>> -If microsoft hadn't stalled progress in software development by
>> hiding the algorithms used for their software we would *now* be
>> there where we will be in twenty years.
>
>I think that Microsoft has stalled progress, not by hiding any
>worderful technology that they might have, but by making the vast
>majority of users accept sub-mediocrity as the norm.

Maybe the average computer user doesn't care how software programs are
written and will accept mediocre software. However if sourcecode is
available some portion of the users will repair bugs or fork into a
better branch.

>They have run a hugely successful advertising campaign for the whole
>concept of sub-mediocrity; the desire for quality is what has
>suffered. By doing so, they have greatly influenced the direction of
>progress and of the meaning of "better". In the Microsoft mindset
>"better" means that the bouncy paperclip moves more smoothly, and can
>now do the cha-cha as well as the samba ... while it remains perfectly
>acceptable to have to reboot the computer each time you want to
>install a new piece of software.

Since you're humoring me and accept "what if" scenarios I don't feel
like criticizing. However we should not be ungrateful to Microsoft
since one way or the other they have provided us with at least one
possible branch of software development. As wrong as it is to
contemplate Microsofts accomplishments and compare it with the "no
software at all" scenario, it is also wrong to assume it was the best
possible path taken. As insight into these matters matures we now know
with the benefit of hindsight that proprietary standards and closed
source suck. We should keep the option open for Microsoft to better
their ways however far they have strayed from the path and even if
they are prone to reverting to the embrace and extend pitfall. This
*does* imply to be wary though if they're turning around and come
back.

Anton