Management
Technology
- Applications
- Business Intelligence
- Development
- Hardware
- Mobile & Wireless
- Networking
- Internet
- Operating Systems
- Security Products
- Servers & Datacentre
- Storage
Toolbox
Training
Books
White Papers
Webcast
Resource Centre
Of Purists and Pragmatists
July 23, 2009
Posted by: Glyn Moody
I have been writing about free software for 14 years. For most of that time, a recurrent feature of that world has been a battle for its soul, waged by two distinct camps.
In Rebel Code, I dubbed them “purists” and “pragmatists”, not really because they are perfect labels, but because I'm a sucker for alliteration. I'll use them here for the same reason.
The purists believe that compromising on any of the principles of free software is doom, and that the end does not justify the means. They are led, of course, by Richard Stallman, who embodies this stern Old Testament viewpoint – and not just when he's garbed as St. IGNUcius.
The pragmatists, on the other, think that it's crazy to cut off one's nose to spite one's face, and that free software is best served by making sensible compromises, provided the end-result is more, better code being used by more people.
As you might expect, the pragmatists are too, well, pragmatic, to have a single undisputed leader, but there are number of well-known figures, like Linus or Eric Raymond, who espouse some variant of the pragmatic approach.
Every now and again, some issues sparks off the great debate, as purists and pragmatists try to gain the upper hand. Perhaps the best example was the launch of KDE, which aimed to create an attractive user interface for GNU/Linux, thus encouraging more people to try it out. A noble aim, but one the purists found insufficient (of course) to justify the use of proprietary code, in the form of the original Qt libraries.
The purists adopted a two-pronged attack. Some set about creating Harmony, a free drop-in replacement for the Qt toolkit; others decided to start form scratch, and created the GNOME desktop, built entirely on free software.
At the time, passions ran high, things were said that would have been better left unsaid, and many predicted terrible schisms. But in fact what happened was that the actions of the purists persuaded Troll Tech, the creators of Qt, to make a number of moves to address the concerns of the purists, culminating the release of the Qt toolkit under the GNU GPL.
Today, most people have forgotten that there was ever anything to disagree over, and instead can enjoy the luxury of having two high-quality, competing solutions.
Now we have a similar situation regarding Mono. The purists are concerned that there may be issues to do with software patents in jurisdictions that recognise them. To them, it seems folly to create what may be tainted code because of the digital sword of Damocles hanging over them through such intellectual monopolies.
For the pragmatists, by contrast, Mono is simply a good way of programming that can serve the useful purpose of allowing people to run .Net-based programs on free software. All in all, then, they believe it is to be welcomed as a way of increasing the use of open source.
There is a particular irony in this situation, because this time it is the GNOME project's use of Mono that is proving unacceptable to the purists, whereas ten years ago, GNOME was the purist solution to the problems with KDE's pragmatism. If nothing else, this shows how foolish it would be to judge projects on their past alignments rather than present actions.
As a spectator and armchair commentator on these events over the last decade and a half, I have to say that I think this kind of thing is good for free software. Debates of this kind help expose weaknesses and refine arguments; because there is a wide spectrum of beliefs and practice involved, free software is able to grow in all directions, and is not slavishly following any particular orthodoxy.
I think these kinds of eruptions on mailing lists and blog posts are a demonstration of the continuing vigour of free software. I would, though, add one caveat. Passionate debate about the technical and ethical issues is to be welcomed, but it is important that the discussions concentrate solely on these. Ad hominem/ad feminam attacks are not just irrelevant, they are harmful.
They can lead to abiding rancour that poisons discussions and decisions for some time, and that helps no one – neither purists nor pragmatists – and certainly not free software.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.
Follow highlights from ComputerworldUK on Twitter
Sign up for our Daily Newsletter
The UK IT News widget Get it for your site!
<<newer entry | back to blogs index | older entry>>
Advert
Email this article to a friend or colleague:
PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.
- This article is now being printed.
What are your views on this subject? Use the form below to post a comment on this article up to 1000 characters.
Click below to add 'Of Purists and Pragmatists' to your blog.
If you do not have a ComputerworldUK Account and would like to use this feature, please Register.
If you are a registered, logged-in user, this will post the title and first paragraph of this story to your blog to share with your readers.
Advert
Newsletters
Our Daily & Weekly Newsletters highlight breaking news, vital issues, expert analysis and solutions to help you stay ahead of developments in the industry.
WHITE PAPERS
-
Legal risks: Employee use of the internet and email
Exploring the challenges facing IT Mangers today and vital steps to ensure safe internet an email use by employees. -
Phishing for victims
This White Paper examines the phenomenon of phishing. It explains the potentially catastrophic threat it presents to all kinds of organisation. Exploding some widespread myths, it lights up the murky waters where phishing first emerged and where it continues to evolve. But it also highlights what your business can do to blunt the threat.
About the author
Glyn Moody Glyn Moody's look at all levels of the enterprise open source stack. The blog will look at the organisations that are embracing open source, old and new alike (start-ups welcome), and the communities of users and developers that have formed around them (or not, as the case may be).
Comments received
Sick of leech pundits said on Thursday, 23 July 2009
"As a spectator and armchair commentator"
That about sums it up.
Glyn Moody said on Thursday, 23 July 2009
"leech pundit" - nice: I must add that to my cv...
Werner Donné said on Thursday, 23 July 2009
Whether software is free or not is not relevant, nor is the openness of its source. The ROI from its usage is all that matters. If free or OS software can provide the quality and service required for the case at hand, then that's fine. If it can't then use a commercial solution. Terms like "tainted code" are very childish.
Glyn Moody said on Thursday, 23 July 2009
I wrote: "To them, it seems folly to create what may be tainted code" - in other words, I was trying to capture what I believe their views to be. And "taint" is precisely the sense, because for the purists, freedom does matter, and anything that takes it away - like software patents - ruins what it touches.
Indeed, in their view, it's quality and ROI are irrelevant, since without freedom they are worthless: who needs efficient chains?
Josh said on Saturday, 25 July 2009
I agree with the premise. Debate between the two camps is both vital and healthy. I do want to make a quick point though. It isn't just the purists who oppose Mono. I am firmly in the pragmatist camp, but I oppose Mono. Using Mono in free software does nothing but promote Microsoft's technology, which itself is just a lame attempt at supplanting Java. There is absolutely nothing in C# or .NET that is better than what Java or Python currently offer. Why even waste time trying to integrate a vanity platform from Microsoft? Doing so will only increase its marketshare.
Basile Starynkevitch said on Saturday, 25 July 2009
Sorry to be picky, but you don't need to say ad hominem/ad feminam to be sex-neutral.
homo in latin means human being, not masculine man.
The masculine man is "vir" in latin (as the word virility reminds).
Thnaks for the good article.
Regards.
twitter said on Saturday, 25 July 2009
You can't get north by walking east. If you care about freedom, you should ignore technical merits that will look unimportant a decade later. <a href="http://cachefly.oreilly.com/radar/oscon2007/OSCON_2007_Eben_Moglen.ogg">Then someone will be able to say, "I told you so."</a> and they will be right. The moral of the story is that software freedom always overcomes technical weakness and "pragmatism" is always a dead end of limited and short lived use. The free software world has the resources to waste on non free fluffery but those resources are always better spent on things that are really free.
Glyn Moody said on Saturday, 25 July 2009
@Basile: good point - thanks for being picky.
James Dixon said on Monday, 27 July 2009
Good points Glyn. You are one of my favourite leech pundits.
One thing that interests me in these debates is how much it is about technology and how little it is about people. In reality the source code doesn't care if it is free or not, and the CPUs don't care either.
Additionally the freedoms and licenses don't care how or if they are used and applied - they are abstract concepts.
Only people care about these things.
One way to look at these events: does this event (whatever it is) make things better in the short and long term for the people that are creating, implementing, and using the software?
When I use this question I feel that the extreme purists and extreme pragmatists are the ones who add the least benefit to these situations.
Bernard Swiss said on Monday, 27 July 2009
The problem (as I see it) is not "pragmatism" -- most "purists" recognize the need for pragmatism, even if they may not like it very much. The problem is that "expediency" is also often presented as being simple pragmatism; the expedient solution or response may be attractive in the short term, but often a truely pragmatic response takes a broader perspective and looks a little further ahead with a view to taking into account foreseeable consequences.
The Mono debate is a good example of this point -- Mono-proponents arguably take a much narrower (more expedient) view of the costs, risks and benefits than do the Mono-averse. The reason this merits the description "expediency" is the facile, hand-waving dismissal of legitimate concerns about patent issues and the legal-economic environment in which such concerns must play out. Some call this "pragmatic", I'd call it "short-sighted".
Glyn Moody said on Monday, 27 July 2009
@James: thanks for the leech pundit vote...I think.
And yes, you're right, ultimately it's about people - which is why it's so messy, and so interesting.
Glyn Moody said on Monday, 27 July 2009
@Bernard: indeed, it's a fine line between pragmatism and expediency.
Martin said on Wednesday, 29 July 2009
I went and checked out Rebel Code on amazon.co.uk it looks interesting but I found the description hilarious when they spoke about Robert Stallman founding the GNU project! Surely someone should check something like that before it gets published!? :-)