Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Free For All

Posted by timothy on Thu Aug 24, 2000 11:45 AM
from the brother-can-you-spare-a-full-featured-OS? dept.
Some writers on the Free software movement speak as if the kernel hackers, security experts and fanatical sysadmins who drive Linux and other Free operating systems are martyrs -- folks who may code out of love, but who ultimately are on what could be seen as a suicide mission rather than a milk run. The typical free software guy (and in fact, the typical software guy, period ) gets treated as a one-dimensional character, with the projects they work on reduced to meaningless blurbs. Peter Wayner knows better -- he takes to heart the notion that history is written by the winners, and proceeds to write history. Read on to see why I'm recommending his new book Free For All to my father. A correction: Theo de Raadt (whose name I had originally mispelled, sorry Theo) pointed out that I'd slipped in "Open" where I should have said "Net." Apologies to all involved in each.

Free For All
author Peter Wayner
pages 340
publisher Harper Business
rating 8.2
reviewer timothy
ISBN 0066620503
summary From-the-trenches history in the making, a survey course on how, why and when Free software took over.

*

Future Perfect

Free For All's subtitle ("How Linux and the Free software movement undercut the high-tech titans") well expresses the attitude that Wayner lets filter through every page of this book. Wayner writes as if from the perspective of a computer historian 10 or 20 years from now, mentioning casually the tools and methods which allowed (past tense) the Free software movement to flourish as if dismissing in many cases the overwhelming dominance of closed software today. Most desktops, it's true, are running some version of Windows, and despite the popularity of Linux and the BSDs, there are still chickens left to hatch before the count. But in the 1920s and 30s, there were still plenty of horsecarts, too: Wayner proclaims that the internal combustion engine of the day is the virtual engine under the hood of our computers.

It's a forgiveable act of hubris, though, considering that Wayner also points out the plentiful high ground that Free software has newly gained, recently regained, or never lost claim to, and it's a convincing list. Slashdot readers, for instance, may know that Apache serves the majority of today's Web sites, but does the average Barnes and Noble browser, even in the computer section, know just what Apache is? This book wastes few opportunities to point out areas where Free software is the obvious best choice, not just a grin-and-bear-it low-cost alternative to something better.

Historical perspective

Wayner sets most of this book in the 1990s -- the reference to Linux in the title makes that a clear and sensible decision -- but makes frequent and welcome trips back in time to temporal locations from the age of Big Iron in the 1960s to Richard Stallman's 1984 GNU Manifesto. To those of us born in the 1970s or later, these episodes serve as welcome reminders of all the history we can learn of only through such means.

To that end, the book offers details and anecdotes about the creation of the Unix and Unixlike operating systems that are on the rise now, from the post-breakup copyright battles over the original source code of AT&T Unix to the serendipitous ignorance of Finnish student Linus Torvalds, who didn't know that there already was all-but-the-polish of a free Unix system already available.

It's not the case, though, that the entire Free software community is presented as one big happily family. More like an extended family with skeletons in several closets and some bickering both around the dinner table and otherwise, but for all that a generally harmonious bunch. The issue of licensing, and of hotly debated terms which might seem to an outsider hopelessly semantic, are raised at several points. Wayner contrasts Richard M. Stallman's vision of Free software (whether you see it as humble or grandiose) with the viewpoints of Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens and others. Stallman and the GNU project seem to get the lion's share of attention, with the obvious justification that without the GNU tools, a free Unix workalike would seem like a quixotic dream.

The time-shuttling approach that he takes with each chapter brings a benefit that makes this book an easy one to put down (for a few minutes, at least) -- it means that each chapter stands as an interesting monologue on some aspect of the Free software movement, and can be read as an enjoyable short essay. Taken together though, the chapters don't just entertain and milk nostalgia from silicon: they make a good case for the premise of the title. Ironically (if you see it this way) this means undercutting some of the arguments that Microsoft is a monopoly. Perhaps Microsoft was a monopoly, but the cut is made and the tree is toppling.

Interestingly, among the copious information about the origins and present state of the various BSD projects (Net, Free, Open), Wayner speaks a good deal about the whispered-about (and shouted-about) animosity between OpenBSD project leader Theo de Raadt and the developers of the other BSD varieties. While de Raadt spoke openly with Wayner, and the NetBSD developers seemingly did not, what ermerges is a slightly more interesting picture than I've seen before about this, and it confirms some positive things I've heard about the whole OpenBSD project. (A project which I think has caused improvement in many other software projects with its unyielding security focus.)

Minor Gripes

Wayner's writing is informal -- no stiff upper lip here. That's not a bad thing, but the prose slips regularly into casualisms and jargon, parts of which work better than others, but none so distracting to detract greatly from the story being told. (As if I'm one to complain about that!)

The other problem I have with the storytelling in Free For All is the litany of rhetorical descriptions of hackers which are introduced in order to refute them for no clear reason. No, not all hackers have long scruffy beards; Yes, RMS and Alan Cox do. No, not all hackers are pale and anti-social; Yes, some of them are. Maybe its just that I've heard these things said before so many times that it just doens't seem relevant any more. Perhaps many of these "human interest" elements really will fascinate readers who'd not considered them before.

Recommended Reading

Who should read this book? I mentioned that I'm recommending it to my father, for the simple reason that this is one of the few books I've seen which are down-to-earth readable but still meaty enough to walk away from with a satisfied feeling, not like you've just been Dummied.

In fact, it reminds me of Stephen Levy's Hackers, in part because it shares a sense of exhiliration and admiration for the people involved, as well as a freewheeling, back-to-the-story-in-progress story telling style. The hackers who make the BSD projects run, and the Linux kernel expand and shrink as code is cultivated and reined in, may be inspired software geniuses. But they share in the unglamorous, painstaking dogwork as well as the glory, and beam a kind of virulent enthuiasm for the cool stuff they're constantly on the cusp of. Wayner gives an over-the-shoulder peek at what that means which doesn't require a C.S. degree, and serves as its own character glossary.

Add this book to the pile that includes Hackers, The Secret Guide to Computers and Open Sources for readable, fascinating, fun computer history that's also relevant for your pointy headed boss.


You can purchase Free for All at Fatbrain.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Free For All | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 61 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Re:Original ideas by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:19AM
  • Re:"van de Raadt"? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:22AM
  • Re:What's under the hood by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @09:07AM
  • Hmm. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @09:18AM
  • Re:Original ideas by Stephan Schulz (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @09:34AM
  • Re:Whoa! by Stephan Schulz (Score:1) Friday August 25 2000, @01:25AM
  • Past tense? by Otter (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @08:00AM
  • Re:Nope by chialea (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @10:29AM
  • Re:"van de Raadt"? by PsychoSpunk (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @08:24AM
  • Slight editing problem by crumley (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:58AM
  • I should have specified: by FascDot Killed My Pr (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @08:47AM
  • Re:Great. (OT) by TBHiX (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @09:55AM
  • Re:"van de Raadt"? THIS IS ONLY A TEST by timothy (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:35AM
  • httpd by phutureboy (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @11:01AM
  • Free Speech for Programmers and New DeCSS Mirror by goingware (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @06:19PM
  • Please dont mention by niekze (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:07AM
  • Re:Reverse the question by VAXman (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @08:34AM
  • Re:Original ideas there are many by VAXman (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @08:41AM
  • Re:Speaking of free books... by VAXman (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @08:45AM
  • Not Pointy-Haired? by Ravagin (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @06:52AM
  • Sounds Good by Kailden (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:06AM
  • Re:Past tense? by BitwizeGHC (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @09:29AM
  • :::Free for All::: misnomer by chowpalace (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:24AM
  • Re:NYT article by Peter Wayner by SquadBoy (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @10:33AM
  • Closed-source books by ravi_n (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @08:11AM
  • The only good thing by from mars (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @11:36AM
  • origin of creativity neither commercial nor free by Pink Daisy (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @03:01PM
  • Not all Americans are that stupid by Imperial Tacohead (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @02:01PM
  • Re::::Free for All::: misnomer by westfirst (Score:1) Friday August 25 2000, @03:46AM
  • I thought "Van de Raadt" was a kind of fish sticks by Vociferous Troll (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @08:00AM
  • Re:Again, again. by grandgrand37 (Score:1) Thursday August 24 2000, @08:04AM
  • Why must it be a gang? by Chris Johnson (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @01:15PM
  • "van de Raadt"? by Frater 219 (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:05AM
  • Re:Speaking of free books... by suprax (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @06:32PM
  • Whoa! by Bruce Perens (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @06:51PM
  • Re:Original ideas by The Famous Brett Wat (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @03:13PM
  • Reverse the question by FascDot Killed My Pr (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:34AM
  • Great. by TBHiX (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:45AM
  • Re:Original ideas? by timothy (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:17AM
  • Re:Original ideas there are many by Junks Jerzey (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @12:39PM
  • Re:Reverse the question by Junks Jerzey (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @12:55PM
  • Re:Hmm. by barracg8 (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @10:35AM
  • Wait! Don't defend M$ on Slashdot! by barracg8 (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:26AM
  • Re:Original ideas by Kmon (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:15AM
  • Re:Original ideas there are many by tylerh (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @11:27AM
  • Re:Nope by streetlawyer (Score:2) Tuesday August 29 2000, @01:19AM
  • What's under the hood by agentZ (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @08:09AM
  • Re:Original ideas by westfirst (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @07:13AM
  • Re::::Free for All::: misnomer by grandgrand37 (Score:2) Thursday August 24 2000, @08:00AM
  • by Hemos (2) on Thursday August 24 2000, @08:08AM (#830364) Homepage Journal
    It's coming - hopefully in the next two weeks or so. We'll be putting it online.
  • by abischof (255) <alex@spa m c o p . net> on Thursday August 24 2000, @07:28AM (#830365) Homepage
    As mentioned, The Secret Guide to Computers [tripod.com] really rocked. Does anyone know the status of this series, though? Last I checked, the "most recent" edition was actually pretty out of date :*^(.

    PS Though it was mentioned that you can buy "Free For All" at ThinkGeek [thinkgeek.com], you can actually get it cheaper elsewhere [bestbookbuys.com].

    Alex Bischoff
    Interested in building a roof over your cubicle? [slashdot.org]
    ---

  • Very good read! (Score:3)

    by suprax (2463) on Thursday August 24 2000, @09:47AM (#830366)
    I love reading computer books and about technology, and this one fit in perfectly. The title threw me off a little bit until I read the subtitle, which mentions Linux; otherwise you would think it's an American history textbook. :)

    Wayner explains everything carefully so the beginner can understand and the seasoned user can also follow. This is the type of book I would give to a friend wondering about linux, or someone running Windows and dosen't know about the "alternative" operating system.

    It also gave me some good knowledge about BSD history that I didn't know before and some in-depth people information about important people in the community. While I knew the majority of the information being covered, it just gave me that warm feeling after finishing the last page.

    I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys computers, linux, or anything remotely close. It's not too simple, yet not too hard. Written in a good, strong langauge, Free for All is a excellent read. I have it linked at http://suprax.org [suprax.org]

    --
    Scott Miga
    suprax@linux.com
  • Re:Past tense? (Score:3)

    by Rupert (28001) on Thursday August 24 2000, @09:01AM (#830367) Homepage Journal
    You have 10 or 20 years to realize that you've missed the point here.

    There's an exchange near the end of "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Jobs says to Gates "we're better" and Gates replies "it doesn't matter". The shoe is on the other foot, now. Gates says to J. Random Hacker "I'm richer" and JRH replies "it doesn't matter".

    The Gates and their descendants will continue to be amongst the worlds richest people long after the last box of Microsoft software is shipped. Red Hat may never turn a profit. It doesn't matter. Free Software is not only morally superior, it is in almost all cases technically superior.

    People used to look at the Gnu tools and say "nice, but hobbyists can't write a whole OS". Now they say the same things about RDBMSs, and they will be proved just as wrong.

    There will be professional programmers, just as today there are professional musicians and professional athletes. We will find a away to pay them because we value what they do. Closed source will be as absurd a concept as a copyrighted touchdown.

    --
  • Again, again. (Score:3)

    by barracg8 (61682) on Thursday August 24 2000, @07:36AM (#830368)
    I'm reading this book at the minute. [I'm only half way through reading it.]

    I'm reading it for a bit more of the human background to open source, and I'm enjoying it. But... for any software engineers out there, it reads like a waterfall development model. It seems to introduce a new idea, then go back, then explore the new idea in the next chapter, where it will kindof introduce stuff from the chapter after it. It seems to loop around somewhat.

    There is just something about the style of the book, that makes me thing I'm watching an episode of Teletubbies.

    Eh, maybe it's just my bad. Maybe I'm getting forgetful in my old age, and just keep reading over the same bits :-)

  • by tylerh (137246) on Thursday August 24 2000, @11:41AM (#830369)
    Here goes the quibbling....

    TCP/IP ... was created by the US government ...rather than hackers. Agreed. I have posted elsewhere, that for the purposes of the original post, I choose "open" to mean "non-proprietary." The difference betwen "open" and "public domain" are signficant, but I believe too fine for the bluntness of the original question.

    the concept of WWW was derived directly from HyperCard. er,um, kinda. At the time, a lot of "hypertext" ideas were in the air. Remember Xanadu? hypercard was certainly closed, and definitely predated html -- but WWW also owed something to gopher and WAIS, which I believe were non-proprietary.

    Few of the technologies you mention are revolutionary Well, perhaps. By this high standard, almost no software ideas have been revolutionary since, oh, Babbage. Could you please suggest what you do consider revolutionary, and decide whether or not it was proprietary?
  • Original ideas (Score:3)

    by streetlawyer (169828) on Thursday August 24 2000, @06:56AM (#830370) Homepage
    What have this gang of people done that isn't a "workalike" for something produced either in academia or in a corporation. I'm asking out of a genuine interest in the answer, by the way; I tend to think that, whatever "many eyes" do, they are the absolute enemy of creativity.
  • I like to see books like this. Free software not only has its utility value... I think it also has cultural values which might help us to play fewer zero-sum games with one another.

    One of the ideas that I'm constantly wondering about is that productivity is mainly fueled by greed. I won't deny that sometimes it is, but I get worried about reducing it to that equation, which is what happens sometimes when I'm talking to those who favor very hands-off/invisible hand economics (and frankly, I plan to tell my children that the invisible hand is something like Santa Claus). I think it's ideas like this that get us into some of the trouble we have today... see if you can think of a few recent legal cases where profit and greed come up against individual rights...

    One of the things that I like very much about the free software community, is that its existence is a strong refutation of the idea that greed = productivity. People create software because they like to. The fact that they recognize that their contributions may be useful to others and benefit them doesn't change this... along with throwing out greed = productivity, you also get altruism included in self-interest (whether or not RMS and ESR can get along).

    Just some thoughts...

  • by Lemmy Caution (8378) on Thursday August 24 2000, @07:08AM (#830372) Homepage
    A lot of the current reporting about the development of our technology is about the CEOs and investors who run the business end of it, rather than the technologists responsible for the actual development. Many CEO's have ghost-written narcissistic, self-serving memoirs about their Brilliant Achievements that often give short shrift to the brains that are actually doing the work.

    The motivation for this sort of selective-history is the stock value of the business at hand. Shareholders like to believe in the myth of the Strong Man At The Helm, the alpha-figure who will enrich them and in whom they can trust. They don't like to be reminded about the pale, wan, tempermental and a-social geniuses that are actually the ones to credit (or blame) for a high-tech's fate.

    Free Software doesn't have this burden of mercenary mythology.

  • Re:"van de Raadt"? (Score:4)

    by Cannonball (168099) on Thursday August 24 2000, @07:09AM (#830373)
    right after Shaggy sold his to buy more scooby snacks.
  • by HugoRune (20378) on Thursday August 24 2000, @07:15AM (#830374)
    This guy also wrote this article [nytimes.com] for the New York Times. It's pretty scathing of the WIPO and the MPAA. Good to see that this message is being published in the mainstream press.

    (don't forget that if you want to avoid NYT registration there's always username:cypherpunks, password:cypherpunks)

  • by tylerh (137246) on Thursday August 24 2000, @08:04AM (#830375)
    What have this gang of people done that isn't a "workalike"

    The Internet

    Internet Explorer. IE started life as Mosaic, one of the original browsers. Like all of the origninal browsers, Mosaic was open source. Microsoft bought the browser idea from its Open Source inventors.

    Apache. [apache.org] This is the direct descendant of the original web server (it too was open source), and it dominates [netcraft.com] the web. Microsoft has tried to copy Apache's functions, but has had a tough time keeping up with Apache's pace of innnovation.

    sendmail [sendmail.com] . Essentially all of the email that goes across the internet does so thanks to sendmail. The orginal (open source) developers now also run a company, but the orignal accomplishments all happened open-source.

    BIND [isc.org] The Internet works on IP addresses (eg. 135.23.43.121). Any time you type a URL (letters) into your browswer, you are using BIND. This was invented open source (the B is for Berkely).

    TCP/IP These are the two protocols (among others) that make the internet possible. In a sense, they define what is "internet." Developed and implemented open source

    Eric Raymond addresses "creativity" issues in his essays [tuxedo.org].