Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Purity

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted April 27, 2005.


Rejoice! The software is pure again!

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Passover started last week, which meant I had the atheist-Jew equivalent of Thanksgiving panic. You know what I mean: the feeling you get when you run around looking for a place to eat fake or real bird meat, even if you think nationalism is bullshit and the natives should have kicked our colonial asses back in the day. Each year I feel strangely compelled to join a group of people for seder dinner, even though I've never believed in any kind of monotheistic über-deity.

As I tried to conjure up a last-minute "eat some weird herbs and read from the Open Source Haggadah Project Web site" event, I was also recovering from a morally bewildering trip I recently took to the Microsoft campus in Redmond, Wash. I was part of a select group invited to meet with the rather friendly and bouncy nerds who populate the MSN Search team. My goal? To offer feedback about civil liberties issues raised by the MSN Search services. Other invitees' goals? Sort of unclear. Mostly, I think they wanted to blog things.

There were a handful of Microsoft fanbloggers there, which was utterly bizarre - I'm not used to talking to geeks whose cute faces get frowny and confused when I mention FreeBSD and OpenOffice. As for the MSN Search team? I think most of them really wanted to know what non-Beast employees thought about their product's potential for evil and stupidity. There are a lot of cool people who work at Microsoft, which is both mysterious and frustrating for anyone who aspires to be an ideologue.

So what the hell is up with MSN Search? Well, the local search is "so bad it's good" hilarious - sort of the Web service equivalent of The Chronicles of Riddick. But I can't tell you much else, because I signed a nondisclosure agreement. Yes, it's true. The Beast of Redmond has sunk its legal tentacles into my brain and imprisoned some information in there that I cannot release. But I'll risk the legal peril to give you one hint about what's happening deep in the dark inner recesses of MSN, where the plot to make start.com into a brand is only just beginning. They want to crush Google's multicolored balls between the steel wings of MSN's floaty butterfly icon. Really, that's it.

My loss of ideological purity at the Beast came shortly after an ambiguous restoration of purity to the GNU-Linux community. BitKeeper has been purged. Here's the deal: For the past couple of years, Linux granddaddy Linus Torvalds and several key open-source developers have been using the proprietary software BitKeeper, a "versioning system" that allows multiple people to modify code at the same time, tracks their changes, and publishes the results. Basically, it's a group editing tool.

Anyway, the author of BitKeeper, Larry McVoy, offered his tool to Torvalds and pals at no cost, and they were happy to take it. Although there are open-source and free software tools like CVS and Codeville they could have used, they preferred McVoy's proprietary tool.

But of course the Linux community freaked out. How could their beloved leader betray the cause and use a nonfree software tool to build their free operating system? Flame wars erupted. Accusations were hurled. McVoy's mailbox filled with daily doses of vitriol. Eventually, he got annoyed and asked people to shut up or he wouldn't let them use BitKeeper for free anymore. So of course the purists screamed louder. And finally, a couple weeks ago, McVoy stomped off in disgust and took his proprietary tool with him. Poor Torvalds, who adored BitKeeper, is now scrambling to move all his code over to another versioning system that he likes less.

Rejoice! The software is pure again!

The whole thing makes me grumpy. Of course the free- and open source-software movements should show that it's possible to build kick-ass computer systems without recourse to any proprietary products whose code is hidden. Building unfree code is like signing an NDA - you agree to keep vital information secret so that profit can be made and power can be consolidated. And yet sometimes there's a proprietary thing that isn't evil. Sometimes you have to sign an NDA to get past the security gates and agitate for truth and justice.

Even if you don't believe in gods, sometimes you find yourself praying to one of them. In other words: fuck purity. Let's eat some gefilte fish.

Digg!

Annalee Newitz (sullied@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who is excited that Danyel Fisher has figured out how to find helpful people and trolls on newsgroups by using a bubble chart.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Somewhere over the rainbow, between free and obscene
Posted by: roxanne on Apr 28, 2005 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for your article - entertaining as well as insightful. I think it will be a while before the proponents of "free or die" and "obscene" profits realize that both can prosper by not viewing technology and its tools solely through absolutist eyes.

I sense that you share some of my personal views, one of which is:
There is an absolute criteria for nothing.

I am lobbying for ways to collaborate openly and share the wealth vs. the last century model of conquer and prosper at the expense of many. It's a natural tendency to see a Bill Gates business model and want to run 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Alas, to me that looks like living on the opposite side of the same coin. And more often than not, the very poor side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's the big deal?
Posted by: elmysterio on Apr 28, 2005 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah, what's the big deal... isn't it best in the "software" world to use whatever tool works best for YOU? Sure, most of the time I'm looking for an open-source tool that'll do the job but that's cuz I'm poor. heh... The fact that Torvalds was given BitKeeper for free sounds good to me. It's the stupid purists that'll cause opposition and stiffle progress...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's the big deal? Posted by: nickptar
Intellectual freedom for the rest of us.
Posted by: pjr on Apr 28, 2005 11:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really important to maintain a wealth of code that is truly free. Using a non-free tool to develop Free Software is not a purity issue, it's about commitment. If we all use a non-free tool because it works better than a free one the result is that the free tool suffers in its progress because the incentive to work on it has been compromised. It's appropriate and responsible to use an inferior program over a non-free offering in order to facilitate the development of the free program.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd like to clarity a point or two
Posted by: jessem on Apr 29, 2005 11:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McVoy didn't stomp off in disgust because he was annoyed that "purists" were complaining loudly. He revoked the licenses of Linus Torvalds and all employees of OSDL, because another fellow of the organization, Andrew Tridgell, was doing work to reverse engineer Bitkeeper's proprietary protocol. McVoy felt too threatened by that and revoked the licenses precisely because of that action (and the fact that OSDL wouldn't pressure Tridgell to halt work on his small project, which he has subsequently made public), not as it's described in the article.

The reason Tridgell was doing this work was to allow programmers, who did not want to use Bitkeeper themselves, to get source code (and the information about how and when it was modified) from Bitkeeper managed projects (in cases where the source code is open and free in the first place, of course). Such an app would allow programmers to closely follow development of the Linux Kernel using a tool that wouldn't "taint" them. One big reason why many refused to use Bitkeeper in the first place is that even though McVoy was giving out licenses at no charge, the terms of usage for the program are such that if you accept to use Bitkeeper (free version), you must agree not to work on any source management system (competing product with Bitkeeper), for a period of 1 year following the termination of said usage. Many "purists" would not relinquish that right, even if it's likely they wouldn't work on a competing product, simply because they find the idea repugnant.

Finally, it must be said that this action that McVoy has taken, which has Torvalds "scrambling to move all his code over to another versioning system," is exactly why many opposed the use of Bitkeeper with the Linux Kernel in the first place: you, the user, have no rights with regard to the tool you come to depend on, and you exist basically at the whims of another. You don't have an absolute right to use the tool or even to reclaim all of the data it created of your usage. So, what seems to be at stake now is that Linux developers don't have access to the information that Bitkeeper kept on how the Kernel source was changed during the past few years, the so called "metadata." As such, a detailed change history of Kernel development under Bitkeeper may be lost, which is a shame considering the import of this hugely successful collaberative project.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]