Can't We All Just Get Along?
Posted 15 Jun 2002 at 21:41 UTC by goingware
Sigh.
bytesplit emailed me
privately recently, and in all sincerity asked my advice on
how he could become a better programmer. He explained that he'd studied
hard at it for a while but hadn't had much luck and felt quite stuck at
it. I knew very well of the ongoing controversy
here but felt that a sincere effort to better oneself should get a
sincere response, and so I wrote back with some thoughts on how to
proceed as well as recommending some books and websites.
But one bit of advice I should have given and didn't was a lesson that I
learned early in my career - one thing I had to do as a young programmer
was to learn to work with people I didn't like.
In some of the jobs I've been on, I have had to work closely with people
who I really didn't care for for various reasons, and sometimes with
people who made their dislike of me readily apparent. To the extent
that I could I would try to arrange not to have to work with them
anymore, but sometimes this was not possible, and honestly these were
just jobs and shouldn't be all-consuming.
Generally I would try to set boundaries, be appropriately polite but no
more, and stand up for myself. But I wouldn't lash out at people or try
to pursue pointless arguments. In some cases I would try to let it ride
while I looked for another job.
Computer programmers are generally not reputed to be especially
possessed of the social graces. Even the ones that try to be nice are
often clumsy and either say things that can be taken the wrong way or
react harshly without thinking of the consequences of their actions.
Many are overtly abrasive and antisocial.
Sometimes I made mistakes and spoke inappropriately to unpleasant
coworkers, and sometimes I got myself a long lecture from the management.
This is not to say that one should be a victim of abuse or to stay
silent when one witnesses wrongdoing. I feel it is very important to
speak one's mind - I quote a profound speech on the topic given 102
years ago on my page
Make a Bonfire of Your
Reputations.
But what is important is to choose your battles to be topics of real
importance. Don't get drawn into petty personal feuds. Devote yourself
instead to speaking out on
social
injustice. Devote your time to working out real solutions to the problems that plague
people or exposing evil.
Despite what you may justifiably think of Bill Gates, even
he is devoting time and money to enabling education and the treatment of
terrible diseases.
Of course, web communities like Advogato are different from the
sometimes difficult workplaces I had to deal with when I was a young
programmer. But we didn't have the web then, and we have a new
community on the global Internet now.
bytesplit, I want
you to consider that there are people who participate in this website
who are from enemy countries that are divided by decades or even
centuries of
religious or ethnic strife, there are people of extreme, polar opposite
political persuasions, all kinds of people who have lots of good reasons
to hurl vitriol at each other through their diaries and articles. But
for the
most part they don't. Perhaps they abstain because they don't
subscribe to these all-too-common hatreds. But I suspect that some
suffer from these prejudices but participate politely because they know
it serves the common good.
The essence of the civil disobedience that was applied to such great
effect by Ghandi and Martin Luther King
is polite resistance - standing up for yourself, not giving in, but
doing so civilly until you win
public support and your enemy is shamed into giving you what you want.
Don't think I'm just spouting off empty advice. I learned these lessons
the hard way, a very hard way.
I used to be one of the most awkward and cynical geeks of all, and at
times was quite a hellraiser.
I paid a heavy personal price for this.
I still
see much in the world that fills me with anger, but I know that the
problems most worthy of struggling against
do not present simple solutions that are amenable to shouted insults.
The struggle is worthwhile, but
one must struggle in an effective way.
Now everyone, don't think I'm just taking bytesplit to task by
writing this. There are others
here who have participated in the quarrel in a childish way, and in so
doing have perpetuated it and really
have cast discredit on themselves and the Free Software community.
Thank you for your attention.
thank you, posted 15 Jun 2002 at 22:47 UTC by bytesplit »
(Journeyer)
I haven't even read the entire article, never would have guessed that
anyone would
take this much of his or her free time to be this kind to me.
Today I (at least I hope that I did) told goingware that i will not any
further be looking for criticism of me (or others for that matter), but
look to contribute to advogato.org in any positive way that i can. i
do ask that anyone who reads this article, and who has responded with
criticism of me in the past, to edit their diaries to the point that
this saga never existed. i will do the same.
Thank you
Bytesplit
..., posted 16 Jun 2002 at 00:26 UTC by mslicker »
(Journeyer)
The essence of the civil disobedience that was applied to such great
effect by Ghandi and Martin Luther King is polite resistance - standing
up for yourself, not giving in, but doing so civilly until you win
public support and your enemy is shamed into giving you what you want.
I'm not sure how this fits in to your essay. However, I would like to
point out, civil disobedience may not be polite or civil (in the sense
you used). It can be quite ugly, or even violent. Though these men
promoted non-violence, this does not mean their action was civil or polite.
Otherwise, perhaps a good strategy is just to stay out of other peoples
arguments. No sense in fanning the flames. I usually skim the recent
log, since little has any relevence or interest to me personally.
My Experience, posted 16 Jun 2002 at 01:37 UTC by johnnyb »
(Journeyer)
I once had an employee (yes, he worked _for_ me) who would yell at me
almost every day. I think he did not like the fact that I was promoted
as a manager over him. Anyway, what I found is that when I got past my
initial defensive reaction, what he said was usually worth considering.
It's one of those things where his tone was rude and obnoxious, but if
you got past that, he made valid points. I didn't always do what he
said or agree with him, but I grew because I was able to look at his
points, and see my own failings and deficiencies clearly. Had I lashed
back, fired hime, or simply ignored him, which was easy to do because of
his demeanor, I would have been the worse for it.
Anyway, it's not an entirely relevant story, but the article reminded me
of it.
GNU and real problems, posted 16 Jun 2002 at 06:11 UTC by tk »
(Observer)
The article gives GNU as an example of a movement which aims to find "real
solutions to the problems that plague people". This is only partly true. I'm
reminded of the Linux vs.
GNU/Linux debate... apparently the GNU people believe that if people
remove the first four characters of a system name, then the world will start
turning evil. Huh?
Still, the GNU movement has done a lot towards solving real problems, and I
respect it for that.
I'm not sure where you are getting the information about the article
having to do with a Unix vs. Linux debate. Without having yet looked
at the pages linked to the this main thread, I would say that the
article written by michael has everything to do with how I could have
better handled the saga that occured on advogato.org, and how computer
programmers in general might better cope with the real, quite often non-
intellectual world. Soon I'll look at the linked pages :)
What I had in mind when I posted the link to
the Free Software Foundation was the
phenomenon of the adoption of Free Software in third-world countries.
I don't think that supplying software to stimulate education and
economic growth in countries without the money to acquire intellectual
property from the industrialized nations was quite at the forefront of
Richard Stallman's mind when he published the GNU Manifesto, but that is
definitely one of the effects it is having.
If you think Microsoft wields too much power in the U.S., imagine the
feelings of people in countries that are threatened with trade sanctions
because people pirate too much software there. Free Software gives them
an honest way out of the bind which has the added benefit of stimulating
the growth of local expertise.
Of course there are many other benefits to Free Software, but that's
what I was thinking of.
Yes, RMS picks a lot of nits over issues that most people think should
be inconsequential. But everybody has their faults, even those with the
greatest accomplishments. I understand even Ghandi made his wife's life
pretty hard.
GNU and Linux, posted 16 Jun 2002 at 17:24 UTC by dalinian »
(Journeyer)
Consider this:
A person is told that "Linux" is a good operating system, and that
s/he should use it. So, the person will try a Google
search. Because the search gives such results as linux.org,
linux.com and redhat.com, the person will think that these are the most
important sites with the best information about this new operating
system. The person never finds out why free software
even exists. And because s/he doesn't know why it exists, he does
not understand s/he should avoid proprietary software even if it might
have some technological benefits.
But what if the person is instead told about "GNU/Linux", the
exciting new OS? A
Google
search again, of course. S/he will then see results with a
significantly greater emphasis on the "GNU/" part. S/he may even click
on the third link, Linux and GNU - GNU
Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF). After reading it, s/he
might decide that the FSF and GNU are a bunch of loonies or something
like that, but at least the decision will be a bit more informed. More
likely, s/he will appreciate the efforts of the GNU project and decide
that they make some valid points; after that, s/he will tend to search
for free alternatives for the software s/he uses.
There is a deep misunderstanding about the GNU project, or rms in
particular. He is seen as a crazy radical that doesn't really agree with
anybody about anything, even when he should. This is not a true picture,
because rms is fighting a completely different, philosophical battle.
The only thing common
between rms and your average computer geek is of
course, computing. But in the end, rms is not about computing at all. He
is about freedom; software freedom is only one piece of that puzzle. An
average computer geek cannot have a sensible discussion with rms,
because they are talking about different issues (maybe even in different
languages), even if they are using the same words.
An average geek:
- free = "don't have to pay, don't have to obey"
- software = "a product related to computing"
rms:
- free = "you are free to share it, and you have a moral obligation to
share it as well"
- software = "digital speech with a function"
Now how could two people disagreeing about the most basic issues
agree about anything else either? I find it quite strange to bring GNU
and the FSF into a conversation
like this, because I understand this is about programming and
cooperation, not philosophy. You can talk with rms, and even have a good
discussion with him, if you understand moral philosophy and are willing
to talk
about it. But then it's no
longer cooperation between two programmers, but two philosophers.
The lesson is: when talking with someone, always make sure you are
talking about the same thing, and agree about the meaning of the words
you use.
As a programmer, rms might not be setting a good example. Working
with him is often difficult, I've read. In
my opinion, the
perfect free software "hero" would have the ideals of rms and the "nice
guy" qualities of e.g. people like Linus. Not that we need heroes, but
still. :-)
IMHO, the technical discussion is not the same discussion as ethic and
freedom. You can get some "conflicting" point of view on technical
implementation (this is often the case) but the freedom discussion is a
not really an issue. We need Freedom for Software and agressive
discussion on the technical side (check all ml on development) is an
important mixture for Software Engineering.
Just a quote from the FSF/lucid discussion :
Message-ID: <9305271823.AA09293@thalidomide.lucid.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 93 11:23:12 PDT
From: Jamie Zawinski <jwz@lucid.com>
To: help-lucid-emacs@lucid.com, epoch@cs.uiuc.edu,
help-gnu-emacs@prep.ai.mit.edu
Subject: the future of Lucid Emacs
The release of GNU Emacs 19 from the FSF does not mean that Lucid Emacs
is going away. We will continue developing it, and merging in bug fixes
and new features from the FSF version as appropriate; we do not have
plans to discard the functionality that RMS has chosen not to include in
his version.
Evolution is normal and required for Free Software...