Stop Making Linux and Open Source Ideological

Recently, Slashdot reported that Free Software Foundation (FSF) leader Richard Stallman criticized Debian’s decision to include Mono in its future releases of its Linux distribution. Mono is an interpreter for Microsoft’s .NET platform that allows certain prorams coded for the Windows .NET platform to be executed inside of Linux natively. Arguing that this maneuver further indebts the development of GNU Linux to Microsoft, Stallman vehemently arued that it was a mistake and will have dire consequences for the continued development of Linux, open source, and free software as a whole.

I first met Mr. Stallman at a talk at my school three years ago. A brilliant, unshaven, and idealistic computer scientist from MIT, Stallman drew crowds of CS students and EE students like a rock star. Stallman has a great way of polarizing a crowd; even as he was speaking, the room was equally divided between “suits” from the business college and computer scientists and other hackers from the engineering and mathematics disciplines (visibly marked by their typical dress of “whatever-the-fuck-we-want” as opposed to the dress shirts and slacks worn by the MBA’s and other business types.)

While it was clear that Stallman was very smart and an excellent leader, his motives seeemed suspect. Most of his speech was dedicated to blasting a variety of people he felt wronged the Free Software Movement and Open Source software as a whole. He angrily lashed out at Linus Torvalds (for whom Linux is named – he wrote the core of Linux, the kernel) for taking most of the credit that he should’ve gotten for Linux. Hot on the tails of this, he blasted Microsoft for corrupting Open Source (their Codeplex Open Source website and the release of an open source license had happened a few days earlier) and exposed a new plan to try and have people stop upgrading to Vista because he posited that Microsoft endangered their freedoms with proprietary code in the OS. What I thought was going to be a cool discussion on software engineering and open source development quickly turned into something of a hate rally. His snarky and pointed comments electrified most of the crowd into a nodding agreement and feverish anger – and away from a great discussion on technology and the future of software development.

I raised my hand when I felt it was enough and asked him plain enough, “how do you intend to expand Linux’ market share on desktops.” Stallman looked at me like I just killed his cat, and locked and loaded a fresh clip of rhetoric against me. “Why are you using business terms like market share around me?” I started to get a little pissed off (this guy clearly dodged my question), and fired back. “Don’t you care about making more people use your software,” I said,”so shouldn’t you care about why people should use it over Windows or OSX?” Stallman dismissively waved his hands in front of my words, and responded that it wasn’t “his job” to worry about stuff like that. His job was simply to “stop the oppression of free software.” After a few more minutes of arguing, I just sat down dismayed. Stallman, who was the leader of this movement, was running purely off of anger. There wasn’t any logic there.

Stallman’s display here was a clear indicator of what I think is the real reason why Linux isn’t living up to its full potential in the consumer market: it’s too ideological. While not every version of Linux respects the Free Software mantra (Free Software requires more than simply opening the source code for view), its visible and loud demeanor undeniably sets the tone for Linux as a whole for consumers. Stallman’s fanatical crusade against proprietary software has hurt Linux’ ability to compete against Windows and OSX because he (and the rest of the Free Software Foundation) is just using Linux as a weapon and not trying to use it as a solution.

There are very real strategic consequences of this. I think Stallman and the FSF’s quick acceptance of Google as a “benign force” is a huge mistake. Google is just as monolithic and potentially dangerous (in terms of a monopoly) as Microsoft. While Google can talk all they want about supporting the acceptance of open source and trying to respect some of the ideals of the FSF, at the end of the day they’re a publicly traded company. Their reason for existence isn’t to cure cancer and pet kittens: they’re there to make money and post a high ROI for their investors. Entrusting Google with the image as the paragon of open source is like letting a nice drug addict watch over your kids: he may be cool, but at the end of the day his motivations lie elsewhere.

This isn’t to say that I think Google, or any company for that matter, is inherently evil and out to ruin open source. But if Stallman is out to really protect the ideals of the FSF, why is he giving away free PR to a major proprietary software creator? This is a huge mistake if you’re trying to keep free software atomic – much less if you’re trying to keep it out of the hands of proprietary software creators.

The decision to deride Debian for Mono is likewise a huge mistake fed by fanatical ideology. Linux – like all software – should exist to solve problems. The .NET platform uniquely addresses issues in software development that allow quality, robust programs to be developed quickly. Why shouldn’t Linux have their own way to natively execute good solutions written in .NET? Likewise, Mono allows for a new channel of standards to be established between the Windows and Linux platforms. How is this a bad thing? Standardization leads to modular innovation, which inarguably is a determinant in the success of Silicon Valley technology. If anything, Mono helps Linux gain public acceptance by allowing programs written for the more popular Windows to work on Linux. Stallman’s vehement and crazy ranting against Debian’s use of it has nothing to do with sound strategy. It’s just another senseless battleground in his neverending war against the “dangerous” closed source proprietary software firms.

And clearly, Stallman doesn’t care about collatoral damage in his war.

Stop making Linux about serving the ideological ends of the Free Software Foundation. The time is ripe for Linux to introduce disruptive and powerful technology into the desktop market; let’s give Linux the tools it needs by not making it about slamming Bill Gates and making it instead about solving problems. Let’s give it the intelligence it needs to strategically fight and compete in the desktop OS market.

Linux needs to be credible a threat to Microsoft and Apple so that we can ensure quality OSes are released with technology strategically developed to both serve consumers uniquely and gain competitive advantage. Making it about ideology and not about competition and solving problems ruins this goal and ensures Linux’ inabilty to gain acceptance beyond a passionate few.