|
I've picked up this thread and jumped through about
a dozen postings on it. Still, I'm about 24 hours behind, but I can't
resisting tossing in my technically-uninformed but worldly-informed
impressions.
SteveWatkins asks: "I would like to know if the group minds me asking tough questions
and
being a bit harsh?"
I always admire someone with backbone enough to
stand up and ask really tough questions. I think I understand the grist of
what Steve is asking even though I am not a tech person.
However, I spent a lifetime in the real world
earning a living. There comes a point where what some, many or all "would
like to be" comes into reality with real life.
Josh answered Steve earlier with a few poignant
quotes:
(1) "You ask
very tough questions. This is good, but I don't really have
all the answers
for you (or the answers you necessarily want to hear)."
(Now, in my
opinion, that is a really honest answer.)
Josh answered as follows: (I'm
inserting my own opinions after the quotes using italics.)
(2)" We
want to make a real sustainable business so that we don't have to work another
day job.(To me, that seems both reasonable and normal and true.)
"We want to dedicate our time to serving this community
and improving our product.(I'm sure the preceding statement is
MORE than 50% true. I understand how altruism and pragmaticism
can be quite intertwined.)
"We also want our
product to be free.(I gather this might be true on the one hand but
does not rule out cashing in by selling support, etc. on
the other.)
"Its not easy to
make a sustainable business based on free tools, but we think its worth trying
-- just requires a lot more creativity." (My personal instincts (and having
met Josh in person) causes me to believe this statement is
true.)
I
totally understand Steve when he says:"So for example I love ant to
bits, and what it has done, and the effort and aims of those behind it. But I
don't want those factors to make me blind to anything of the negatives that
exist or may potentially exist."
In my
opinion, Steve is an idealist as pure as the driven snow. Josh is an
idealist attempting to deal pragmatically with the real
world.
I was in a position similar to Josh's in the late 1960s. I was
an anti-war-button-hippie entrepreneur. The "real" (you might say) hippies
considered me a traitor. I "made money" selling a line of anti-war slogan
buttons wholesale all across America. They saw me as an evil
capitalist. I saw myself as someone "spreading messages" and enabling
numerous activist students to support themselves reselling the buttons I
wholesaled.
I don't want to involve myself too much in this debate but I really
identify with the issues involved, philosophically speaking. I admire both
Steve and Josh. I understand their arguments. I'm not running for
office, nor attempting to curry favor with anyone, but I have to say that they
are both "right" from the vantage points they are coming
from.
That said, one thing I have learned in life is that you sometimes do
change you mind. I reserve that right regarding all of this. Maybe,
Steve and Josh and I are ALL 100% wrong!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:01
PM
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Free &
Open (was To Eric Rice / Audioblog about file conversion to the Flash
I would like to know if the group minds me asking tough
questions and
being a bit harsh?
The primary reason I do it, apart
from being socially defective in
some way it seems, is related to the
recent discussions about
impartial media, bias, citizen journalism,
accuracy, all that stuff.
If we really believe in all that stuff, then
its necessary to test it,
to put any preexisting love or hate for people or
products to one
side, and to see if the reality actually matches the
rhetoric.
So for example I love ant to bits, and what it has done, and
the
effort and aims of those behind it. But I dont want those factors
to
make me blind to anything of the negatives that exist or
may
potentially exist.
I beg you not to use the term opensource so
widely. Listening to user
feedback and being free and having great motives
and doing beta tests
is not open source. Its just not. It makes my brain
recoil in horror,
it makes a nonsense of the term, it becomes like a
marketing phrase or
empty political rhetoric.
As for the situation
with the betatesting, I agree with what you wrote
there, but the control
just went that bit too far for my tastes, and I
still believe it runs
contrary to talk of how open you are. If youd
not used talk of how open ant
was, maybe people would have more
instinctively understood not to blab
about the beta in public, if you
want control you need to be unambiguous
about it.
Steve of Elbows
--- In [email protected],
Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Steve,
>
>
You ask very tough questions. This is good, but I don't really have
>
all the answers for you (or the answers you necessarily want to hear).
>
> I completely disagree with you on the definition of open source
there.
> Open source is not just about source code. It is a much
larger
> cultural exchange that is as much social, and political as it
is
> technical. Besides, there is nothing restricting others from
building
> their own RSS aggregator. Go ahead and do it. You don't need
our
> source code for that.
>
> FireANT is based on open
content and open protocols. It will have an
> open web services API that
developers will be able to take advantage
> of. We are doing our best to
make this community stronger. We do a ton
> of outreach and education.
Anyone who spends even a brief time on this
> list would know that. We
do this because we believe in this spreading
> this culture. We believe
that other people's voices are important --
> that media should be an
active conversation and not a passive
> experience. We want people to
create and distribute their own media,
> and we work damn hard to
acheive this goal.
>
> We also believe in FireANT. We want to
make a real sustainable
> business so that we don't have to work another
day job. We want to
> dedicate our time to serving this community and
improving our product.
> We also want our product to be free. Its not
easy to make a
> sustainable business based on free tools, but we think
its worth
> trying -- just requires a lot more creativity.
>
> Regarding the alpha testing process... I don't think our concerns
were
> unreasonable. We had a closed testing group, and some members
were not
> able to respect the responsibility of being a tester -- it
doesn't
> just mean you get to grab some free software, it means you
are
> agreeing to help us through the process by providing useful
bug
> reports and feedback in a somewhat controlled environment... yes,
the
> private alpha and beta testing process should is controlled by
its
> very nature. When the software is public, then you can feel free
to
> discuss publicly. Again, not an unreasonable concern on our
part....
> sheesh this discussion is several months old too.
>
> -Josh
>
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
