That is perfectly fine. I’m not here to be a politically correct person. This is my space on the Internet—and I’ll say what I like here. You know how I believe in freedom and its natural limitations? No? Well, I’ll say this until the day that I die: one person’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins. I’m free to say what I like, and you’re free to read it in any way you like or even not at all. Now, I won’t talk about other people by name on my blog unless I have permission to do so—especially if I’ve nothing positive to say, so don’t say that I’m not being at least a bit nice to you—but if I write a post here and it’s about you and you know that from nothing other than reading that post, maybe that is saying something more than what I have said here. If that has ever been the case in the past, or if it ever becomes the case in the future, then know this: it’s better you read what I have to say about you here, than wish that I were willing to spew my unfettered anger in your direction in person. And shoot, if you’re doing things that are illegal (such as running unlicensed proprietary software) and I haven’t turned your ass into law enforcement, you should be thanking whatever deity you believe in. Honestly.

Anyone who knows me—even if they do not know me well—knows that there is absolutely nothing that will make me angry like willful ignorance.  “Ignorance is bliss,” as the saying goes, but ignorance when combined with the lack of desire to fix it in what you claim to be a domain of specialized knowledge which you possess is just plain inexcusable. If you manage a network, you should know the basics of how it all works. There are people that I know that manage Windows networks and know nothing—not even the high level overview—of how Windows networking actually works beyond the painted pixels on the screen. Guess what? That means that you really do not know what you’re doing.

And lest anyone get offended or butt-hurt over being called ignorant, don’t. Let’s remember what ignorance actually means, and remember that it’s not an insult or a sleight against anyone—everyone is ignorant about many things, even in their own fields of work and expertise. However, willful ignorance in one’s own field—that is, ignorance that you’re not willing to fix all on your own like a big boy or girl—is absolutely something that you should be offended at! It is simply not possible for a single human being to know everything, even in his or her own specialty.  We have reference works, documentation, and vast seas of information in every field that I can think of, more than can fit in a human brain. But what matters is that you know what you know, and know what you don’t, and know how to find it out quickly and efficiently. And that means having a sort of self-initiative. And for that matter, I’ll even point people in the right direction, if they’re willing to do the legwork themselves to decipher the information once I’ve pointed them at it. I certainly don’t spoon-feed though, and if you expect that (in your own field, no less!) then I will stand by my assertion that you should not work in that field at all. And I will stand by that assertion whole-heartedly, no matter how much that gives a person pain.

If you’re ignorant about something that you never do nor have a desire to do—say, you’re an auto mechanic and you don’t care to know how to sew or crochet—then that’s fine; that’s your choice! But if you work in a field, and you learn that there is something that you don’t know, then learn it. Or at least learn where you can learn it when you need to, and get a friggin’ overview in your head. Read any single RFC and you’ll realize that there is no way that any of us can memory every single detail of every single specification for every single type of system that we manage. It’s just not possible without spending so much time studying that as to make it impossible to get anything useful actually accomplished. But if you manage a mail server and you don’t know the first thing about SMTP or POP3 or IMAP or whatever-else protocols your mail clients and servers are using, yes, that’s a problem. You certainly do not need to be able to have a conversation with your SMTP server, but you should know how to look up just how to do to that should you ever have to do any really low-level troubleshooting or log capturing. You shouldn’t need to know how to speak any application layer network protocol directly for that matter (though a lot of the text based ones are simple enough that you can learn them as needed over time). But you absolutely should know how to find the information that tells you how to speak those protocols if ever you have a need. And you should know enough to be able to make intelligent decisions on things like physical network infrastructure, management of your client and server operating systems, and so forth.

As an example: I am nowhere close to an expert on Windows—and I know this. (I will say that I know an awful lot about the way Windows bootstraps itself, as I have had to fix systems with multiple infections by hand because there were no automatic tools available to fix the system… but that does not make me an expert on the whole system, and probably not even the bootstrapping process of the system.) But I will research any issues that I encounter while supporting Windows users and find out—empirically, if I must—how to fix the problem. It’s what I do. And there are many, many places where I can find that sort of information, including booting up a copy of Windows itself and trying to figure it out that way. It does probably take me a lot longer than it would take someone who knows the system in and out, and I’ll grant that. I am absolutely the strongest on POSIX/UNIX-family systems. But that doesn’t stop me from being able to learn it and handle it. Even if it does take longer.

The difference between me and the unidentified person in my last post? I’ll spend any resources necessary—time, money, effort—to learn what I need to learn to get the job done. I don’t cut corners. My goal isn’t to get everything done sloppy and fast. Even if it takes me longer, I’d rather know and understand the problem—and its solution!—completely before moving forward with doing anything about it. Especially if I can find a short-term workaround that will enable me to come up with a quality solution. I eschew willful ignorance in my field. Do you?

We pay cash at restaurants especially ones of certain
nationalities.

The context of this quote is a discussion on credit/debit card usage, and this statement came at the tail end of how care must be taken to ensure that one is not subjected to fraudulent charges (nevermind the fact that banks in the U.S. mostly do zero-liability these days). This has spawned a rather heated discussion, which apparently resulted in the person who made that comment leaving the mailing list.  The whole idea that we continue to change our behavior depending on the ethnicity of the person(s) we are around is nothing short of infuriating. It is like we fail to understand that qualities like honesty and trustworthiness are markers of an individual.

What does the above statement say? It says that the poster of that statement feels that he cannot trust “certain nationalities”. This person later made the claim that it was sad that people could find racism in nearly any remark—but the thing is, it is right there, not even hidden from view. It’s blatant.

Even worse, when the poster of the comment above was called out on it, most of the people on the mailing list jumped to this person’s aid to defend them. Honestly, I do not know what is worse: the fact that this person said this in the first place, or the fact that the majority of the mailing list’s members rallied up on the side of that person. Quite possibly, I think the latter, because that shows that we still have in society the notion that racism is somehow acceptable, and that the more veiled or subtle it is, the more okay and polite it is. I find that downright offensive.

It is certainly enough to make me consider dropping the mailing list and participation in the group altogether. It is difficult to be in a group when you cannot even look at its members—your peers—with respect, even if they are some of the smartest minds you know in a particular field. Why be part of it at all?

So, this is a pretty simple-sounding network, yes? It should be—it is just a handful of computer systems. However, there is a problem—a pretty large one, I think. There is very little in the way of either policy or convention on the network. Some users use their documents directory for storing their documents, others store their documents on their desktop, others somewhere differently altogether on the C drive, others on a network share in a public storage space. There are different versions of software on the various machines, more-or-less updated when someone thinks about it, I think.

This is a perfect scenario which shows why a business network should be centrally managed in some form. Note that I am not saying that each machine should be a bit-for-bit mirror image of the one next to it, though that is certainly a possibility. I think that people should be able to use their own choice of things like email client or Web browser software, because everyone is different. But when you have different client applications fulfilling a role on the individual workstations, you have to take a centralized approach to ensuring that things like the email is all backed up.

Furthermore, if you don’t take a centralized approach to backing up such data, it is very difficult to centralize the network storage. Think about adding a domain controller (that is Windows speak for a central server which handles authentication and authorization, as well as file and printer sharing and things like roaming profiles) to such a network. I expect that with multi-gigabyte mail files, things will be very slow at first—and that likely the only fix for them that is going to be viable in the long term is to centralize more infrastructure.

I am too tired to expand more on my thoughts on what I have learned and where it is heading, but the Reader’s Digest version of the point reads something like this: If you are a small to medium sized business, make sure that you have someone who is competent in both system and network administration, and make sure that they are a part of your business from day one. Like writing software, building up a technical infrastructure without careful thought and design is hazardous and comes with many hidden and unpredictable costs. It is best to head those things off right from the start; to delay only amplifies the cost of fixing the underlying problems and puts oneself in the position where fixing one issue can have a domino-like effect and create more new problems.

For my current situation, I think I am going to have to seriously re-think how this whole setup is done. What I do not yet know is how to quickly and efficiently bring things into shape. A bit of training and education may be required, and certainly the removal of a lot of unnecessarily-granted privileges on the workstations. That, too, should be something caught early-on: do not let every person in a business run with administrator privilege, unless they are an administrator (and even they should only run with administrator privilege when they are actually doing something that requires that privilege). If everyone is an administrator, there is little to no control on how things are done in a network, and it can get messy.

I have a lot more reading to do, as well.

Well, anyway, it is way past my bedtime.  Time for sleep.

The Free Software Foundation objected to UDI for various reasons. Mostly, I think, it was because they were afraid that people who are not them would choose to use drivers that were non-free. As I’ve written about before here, there are people who think that forcing people to use free software is somehow freedom—and I will not go into it in any great depth here, because I have done that in the past. Suffice it to say that forcing anything is not freedom; it cannot be freedom. So, the Free Software Foundation, I think, was really afraid that they would have to do more work to be able to stick to their own requirement of using 100% free software on their own computer systems. (And hey, Roy, if you’re reading—I’m not saying that the FSF is wrong, and I’m not putting myself in a position opposite of that of the FSF. I suspect you think so anyway, but hey, I just figured I would point that out.)

Even if the free software operating systems did not adopt the UDI specification, why didn’t proprietary operating systems? This is perhaps the most puzzling thing to me. It seems that in this event, none of the operating systems—free or proprietary—did what would have made sense. After all, even if only Apple and Microsoft adopted a common device driver specification, that would save a lot of time, effort, and improve user experience all the way around. Apple users would be able to use all the hardware that Microsoft users could use—and the inverse would also be true. The amount of time that device driver authors would have to spend writing and debugging driver code would go way down—free software driver authors would be able to write a driver once, for example, and all systems (including free software systems that chose to support the specification) would benefit.

I could see an objection of a driver specification that was binary-only. However, UDI was not—it mandated an ABI so that drivers that are built for a particular platform were binary-compatible with operating systems on the same platform, but it also mandated an API, so that drivers would be source compatible to any operating system that implemented the specification, on any platform. That by itself would seem to me to be positive motivation to hardware manufacturers to release the source code to drivers so that they can support operating systems that are on platforms that do not exist yet, or have not been considered (or have been considered to be nonviable or unsupported platforms).

So, I have to wonder why a common device driver specification was never implemented in various operating systems. It would seem to be a common sense thing, especially given that there are so many operating systems. It would make the coexistence of operating systems a lot easier, and it would promote choice. It might encourage bits of proprietary code on free software operating systems, but it would also enable people to drop the excuse that “free operating system x does not support device y”, and would as a result potentially increase the number of free software programs and operating systems in use, even if there is a minor cost in terms of certain drivers. And those drivers could always be replaced—a common driver specification would make it easier to understand the structure of drivers generally, and make it easier for lawful, clean-room reverse engineering to be done on those drivers.

Imagine, for example, if drivers for graphics cards, TV tuner cards, video and audio encoding/decoding cards, modems, storage chipsets, motherboard chipsets, USB chipsets, IEEE-1394 chipsets, graphics tablet devices, touch screens, debugging interfaces, network devices, and so forth were all written to a common specification, it would reduce the amount of code which needed testing. It would increase user choice in both hardware and operating systems—something which I still hold is quite likely the most valuable freedom we have. It would increase reliability, since the users of Windows, OS X, Linux, the various BSD systems, and other, not-so-mainstream operating systems would be able to run the same driver code and collectively supply debugging information and perform testing in a multitude of environments. It would increase security, because then common code that is well-known could be used on all platforms and not just the one it was written for. It would do for device drivers what POSIX has done for user-mode application software. I do not believe that I could be convinced that this would be anything other than a good thing.

Also, it could bring back old operating systems.  Imagine what life could be like, for example, if OS/2 had a “UDI driver” written for it, and it could then take advantage of newer drivers never intended for it. Or any other very old operating system which is no longer supported and could still be useful, for any of a number of reasons…

“You can have freedom without choice.”

That someone could even come up with this one is just amazing to me. Note that this is not an exact quote, but it is the summary of Friday’s topic. For example, this summary comes from the idea that Canonical is bad for considering making mainstream non-free software available for Ubuntu based on user preferences. It does not matter who came up with it, of course, but the important thing is that it be called what it is: patently absurd. The ability to choose is a major part of what freedom—or liberty—is. If you cannot make a choice on a matter, then by definition you do not have freedom in the context of that matter. It is quite simple and self-explanatory. Canonical is seeking to increase freedom here, not take it away. Some people actually want to use non-free software; others may not want to use it, but aren’t aware of alternatives. The latter group of people should have our focus with regard to education (but then we should let them make the choice for themselves!).

Note that I am not one of these people: I would rather use free software because of the liberty it gives me that I have come to expect over the years. But I am not going to tell someone else that they are harming me because they would rather use non-free software that is familiar to them. All I can do is show them that there are free alternatives that exist. I cannot—and I will not—make them use it or make them feel bad for not using it. I may not like proprietary software for a variety of reasons, but I will defend people’s right to use it just as I will defend even a stupid person’s right to spew nonsense by way of speech or written word. In other words, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” or perhaps more appropriately, “I [may] disapprove of what [software you run], but I will defend to the death your right to [run] it.” Even I use a package or two that is proprietary in nature (though it is looking like I will not have to do so for much longer, given the efforts to replace these packages with equivalent free software).

It is worth it to note that by adding non-free software to Ubuntu, the free software that is already there does not change. The mere existence of non-free software within its repositories does not make Ubuntu somehow bad or evil. It would add choices that do not currently exist, and that one such as myself or yourself can certainly opt out of—I most likely would, for the most part, as I do not need to depend on non-free application software, and I only use non-free drivers if I have hardware where anything else is nonviable (and only until there are functional free software drivers). Did you know that Ubuntu has an option in the installer to only install free software? Can you say that for your favorite desktop operating system distribution, whatever that might be?

The response to this idea, then, is that without choice, there is very little—if any, really—freedom. The thing that gives us freedom with free software is that we are able to to download the source code, to review/audit it, to change it to fit our needs or fix a problem, and to share those changes. If we cannot do those things, then it is not free software; see the essential freedoms. But non-free software inside a distribution is not something that should not cause you great consternation even if you are among the most dedicated of freedom advocates, for if you are a true advocate of freedom then by definition you must respect a computer user’s freedom of choice. Remember that we choose to run free software because of the benefits it brings to us; we choose to improve upon free software for much the same reason. Eventually, I think that free software will once again become the norm for computer software, on merit alone, for no other reason than the development, release, and usage of free software is a highly practical solution for many things ranging from library code to application software to complete operating systems. It is worth noting that free content—which is similar in concept to free software, which itself is merely a specific application of freedom itself—also appears to making major headway towards becoming mainstream; it is doing so more quickly than free software is, but there is every reason to believe that free software will follow, for it is already.

An Example

Imagine that you are in a store, because you need some milk for dinner some night. You always get 1 gallon of 2%. But, the store has stopped carrying it, because more people buy whole milk and they were throwing away the 2% milk—demand was low, supply got to be too high, so they just stopped carrying it altogether. You leave the store and head to the next in the same town and you find the same thing there. You have a choice of stores to go to, and you have made the choice to go buy yourself some milk. But there is only one type of milk. You no longer have the choice to buy 2% where you are, and so effectively, your freedom to buy it has been taken away. (Of course, you can make 2% milk from whole milk (and make whole from 2% even, or even butter), but I suspect just as many people want to do that as want to write their own free software that they demand simply must exist, but doesn’t yet).

Now, the point here is that there is more than one freedom in play: the freedom of the store to stock (or not stock) various products, which affects your freedom as a consumer to buy the product you want. In the case of software, and choice, if the software you are running gives you all the choices you want, then it fits your needs. If it does not, then you are not going to be able to use it the way you want. Now you have two choices: you can do the work that it would take to make your desired choice possible, or you can use another system (free or proprietary) that will give you the choice that you want. Many people will choose the latter, especially if they are non-programmers. Though I’ve seen programmers also choose to use proprietary systems for something that they could themselves implement. That is their choice, of course. After all, if you really wanted 2% milk, you would have the same choice: make it yourself, or drive to the next town over which might have it available for you (assuming that there is some in stock and that the stores neighboring towns have not also decided to stop stocking 2% milk).

Ubuntu One: The Reason Behind This

This discussion came up because someone on identi.ca made the claim that Canonical is forcing proprietary software into Ubuntu by way of the Ubuntu One client software. I cannot even begin to state just how woefully incorrect this point of view is. First off: the only thing added to Ubuntu is the ability to connect to Ubuntu One, and the software that was added to Ubuntu do to that is licensed under Version 3 of the GNU General Public License. The claim made in response to that was that Ubuntu One is only partly free software, because the server is somewhere else and has not been released. As we shall soon see, that claim is nonsensical—it depends on an extremely naïve view of how software actually works in order to make sense, really.

So, first things first: Ubuntu One, which was added to Ubuntu 9.04, is not proprietary software. The proof rests in the fact that it GNU GPL v3.0, and we know a priori that software licensed under the GPL is free software, so we do not need to go further on that point.

Now, because the software in question added to Ubuntu is free software, we can read it. The essential freedoms granted to us by truly free software ensure this, and the GPLv3 is indeed a truly free software license because it grants those freedoms. Because we are able to study the software and see how it communicates with the server. Once we know how to communicate with the server, we can write that up and design a server that communicates exactly the same way. From there, it is just a matter of patching the sync dæmon that is in Ubuntu to talk to an arbitrary, Ubuntu One compatible server. To determine how to do that, one need only read the Python source code contained in the python-ubuntuone-storageprotocol and python-ubuntuone-client packages. If you do not know Python well, you might expect to spend several days doing that, but if it bothers you so tremendously that you are going to practically start a flame war over it, you may find it worth it to do so.

Of course, the other side to that is this: if you really want Ubuntu One to talk to an arbitrary server that runs free software, and you want that free software to be written, you can fund the effort to write the free software. Approach a proficient developer somewhere out there on the Internet and ask them how much they’d charge to write a server for Ubuntu One. You might not be able to afford the fund the project entirely, but if you get a number from someone, you can start a coordinated effort to raise the funds. If you are lucky enough to be able to fund the whole project, then do so: it is but one way that you can help provide something back to the community. This does not apply to just an implementation of the Ubuntu One protocol, it could apply to anything that you see that is missing and needs to be created. Or you could spend time learning what you need to learn to pick up the project yourself, if you care for the project that deeply. The most important attribute that a person can have in order to get started with development is motivation—James Westby reminded me of this a couple of years ago, something which I had forgotten.

Perceptions: Another (Possible) Reason

It was suggested to me that another possible reason that people would object to having non-free software inside an operating system distribution such as Ubuntu is that they are afraid that the proprietary options have higher quality, or offer superior features, or provide functionality that is not offered by any existing free software. Thus, they have this perception that by adding such non-free software into a distribution like Ubuntu, people will automatically use and prefer it over free software. This simply is not the case. Sure, some people will use iTunes if it is available on Ubuntu. Maybe many people would. I might even do so, if it were legally available for me to use that way and if it supports the purchase of DRM-free music. However, if there were a free software client for the iTunes store, I’d much prefer to use that. To my knowledge, however, there is no such thing that exists.

If there is not a free software alternative for a non-free component inside a distribution of software, if you are offended by that, then by all means, create a free software alternative for it! As mentioned above, you can start on such a project’s development, or you can look for people that would be interested in volunteering for it and coordinating them, or you can put up funds to pay developers to implement it. If you have money, this can be the easy part: find someone who is willing to accept payment for the service of implementing the free software alternative for whatever it is that someone else has funded, wrote, and released as proprietary software. It is not like free software is developed without cost (and if you think that it is, then you seriously do not understand what free software is or anything about the world of free software and have no standing to be getting mad when a company spends money writing software and does not release it as free software. You can try to write companies that write such software and ask them if they will give you any form of written specifications for the software, or an interface definition, or something along those lines. The worst thing that could happen is that you will be told “no”. And do so nicely, or they’ll be more inclined to tell you “bugger off” instead of simply “no”.

“Allowing users to choose proprietary software is anti-freedom.”

Nothing could be farther from the truth; it is the same, in fact, as the above statement that one can have freedom without choice. For example, if Ubuntu adopts iTunes and makes it so that you can “sudo aptitude install itunes” in the future, that is not a bad thing! How can it be—It contributes to the ability to choose, and thereby contributes to the freedom of the end-user. If you are a die-hard free software supporter and do not want to run non-free software on your system, then there is a very simple solution for you: simply don’t install it.  That is a valid solution to the problem. There are tools already available that can be run as a cron job and report on any non-free software that you might have accidentally (or even intentionally) installed. If you are worried about additional non-free software getting into Ubuntu, then help enhance those tools. Or write a GUI front-end for something like the virtual RMS program and work to get that included into Ubuntu as well, perhaps something that can run every time you login to the computer, or that runs as a persistent process that watches the package database on your distribution of choice for updates and then checks to see if newly installed software is non-free and alerts the user. Of course, it’d be most effective as an opt-in system, and not an opt-out one where it would just be annoying.

There is no way, then, that freedom is actually reduced in this way when another choice becomes available. If iTunes were to be included in the repositories (and I suspect it would be, like the restricted, universe and multiverse repositories, a separate opt-in repository; perhaps simply “proprietary” would be fitting), this does not reduce your ability to choose to run a free software media player and manager like Banshee, or Rhythmbox, or even AmaroK if you are so inclined to run that KDE stuff.

Once upon a time, FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) was the tool of Microsoft. We (the free software world) completely hated it when Microsoft would put out FUD, because we would then have to fight that FUD by way of explanation and demonstration. Well, some time ago, a subgroup of the free software world decided to start using FUD themselves—it was done with Mono, and it is being done now with just a survey asking people what sort of software they would like to see in Ubuntu. Now, those of us who are left who are advocates of liberty—both personal and societal—are stuck potentially fighting two battles. One with Microsoft’s FUD—such as the constant notion that you have to pay for software—and one with the “free software evangelists” FUD, who have even gone so far as to say that people should not use certain types of free software (the one who calls himself “The Open Sourcer” even still today tells people to remove certain truly free software from their systems). The truth is somewhere in the middle, between these two ends of the spectrum.

Conclusion

Back to the point at hand: to say that giving a person a choice is a constraint on that person’s freedom, that is doublespeak.; it is saying that “slavery is freedom,” albeit to a lesser degree than that very melodramatic extreme—it simply does not make sense. The concept just does not make sense unless the words that are used to express the concept are dramatically redefined to mean things vastly different from what standard English dictionaries define them to be. The only reason that one has to try to convince someone that additional choice is a constraint on freedom is to try to convince people of things that are not true; to install fear, uncertainty, and doubt into people. This is the sort of behavior that—no matter what community it originates from—is completely immoral, unethical, and absolutely unacceptable. It’s dishonest, and for those of you who know me personally, you know what I think of dishonesty.

Let’s get something straight, people:  Freedom is a lot more than just free software or choices.  Freedom is a concept that most people who have gotten on the “free software” bandwagon of late just don’t understand!  It is awfully frightening; even RMS feels that freedom cannot be had without choice—his writings of the past 20+ years make it clear that he feels that choice is key, and these people are calling him “leader” without even knowing what it is he is fighting for!

It seems that the "free software" crowd these days assumes that if you do not hang off of their every word, accept their every inconsistent argument, and bow to their ways of making every last line of code free and GPL’d, you are the inconsistent one (because you’re inconsistent with them).  Even more to the point, I am utterly sick of running into people who learned about “free software” bloody yesterday and are now going “Oh, you bad NVIDIA user, you’re evil, you’re wrong, you’re hurting me just by using NVIDIA.”  Sure, asshole.  I’ll remember that the next time I send data off to a project working on free drivers—I’m hurting you, yep.  So, then, why am I bothering to contribute my time, tell me?  And when people rant but then get offended when you tell them that they’re ranting and to hurry up and get to the point, and they get offended by that? What is that, anyway? "Oh, I’m so thin skinned I can’t even listen to you tell it like it is?" is that what that is? I don’t know.  In case you couldn’t tell by the category, this post is a rant. (though much larger than the rants that are possible on services like identi.ca).

I am going to guess that it is time for me to pick up my book on freedom and start working on it again.  The world needs to be reminded what freedom really is; far too many have too limited a view of what freedom is and only apply it to certain situations, certain circumstances, or certain things.  Or think it is some boundless fountain of infinite choice.  Where are the people that don’t sit at those two extremes‽

And in the meantime, I have to figure out, seriously, why I bother.  My clients want to move to free software stacks, and I am doing so for them over time (gasp! by using their proprietary software to study it, learn about it, and reproduce it—but I suppose that is “harming” the new generation of free software users, too, right?).

What am I missing here?  I don’t know.  I know this: It is late and I am cranky. Night.

That’s right.  Now, there are many things that the man has done that have been effective, and the man has worked hard to ensure that we have freedom in the vast world of software.  But recently, he has stated that Miguel de Icaza “is basically a traitor to the free software community,” and no matter how much good a person has done, I cannot stand by such a fallacious statement.

What is freedom, people?  The two cornerstones of freedom are education and choice.  A person who is uneducated cannot choose, and so one depends on the other.  Some people will choose to use either free software or proprietary software exclusively, and others will mix the two together, with varying priorities that they place on their choices.  As long as people are aware of what’s out there and can determine what is best for the way they use their own systems, freedom is available.  Yes, that means some people may choose to run Windows.  Many will not, and if one makes a conscious choice, that is for them to do for themselves.  My concern is that people need to know about the choices in order to make a choice to begin with.

Now, de Icaza has done a great deal of work for the open source community.  He’s one of the key people who has been behind Midnight Commander and GNOME.  And of course, Mono.  He has given us a great deal of good quality, free software that many people can choose to use, and he has given the ability to use a VM-based runtime environment that previously was not cross-platform, as well, on nearly any platform that can be chosen.  The GNU people are even working on a similar one.  But this is not the reason that de Icaza is supposedly a traitor to the community.  The reason?  de Icaza is helping Microsoft out with their new “Open Source Labs”.

Guess what, Mr. Stallman?  The fact that Microsoft is starting to enter the world of free software cannot be considered to be a bad thing.  You did a great deal of work to ensure that free software that is adequately licensed can stay that way, and the turn the copyright system around on those who have sought out to corrupt it.  You have put free software on the radar around the world.  You have done a great many things that others would not have the heart, nor the motivation, to carry out.  It would appear, however, your time is up:  the world can and will move on without you, and I declare that it is time for you to go away.  When you start attacking people in the very world that you helped to create, you become obsolete and no longer serve your purpose.  I dub St. Ignucius of the Church of Emacs to be a heathen who has forgotten his message, forgotten his values, and is now a harmful creature; hardly a saint, more like a devil.  Overtaken with fits of arrogance.  Lately, you have caused a great deal of infighting within the community.  As I am sure you are well aware, infighting serves very little useful purpose but to tear apart communities.  And now you make a bold, arrogant, and false statement that serves only that purpose, but to an extent the likes of which we have never seen from you.

I say that we shun him—and his kind. Things are starting—albeit slowly—to come around to the way we want them, and he would prefer to attack it.  Why?  What logical reason is there to do so?  Because he’s not the controller of it?  Because it grew to be something that even companies that he helped cultivate an irrational, religious-like hatred of, are beginning to see is useful (not only to them, but to all of us)?  What is his new goal, that all software should be GPL’d and if it isn’t it is evil?  We should not tolerate these sorts of counterproductive behaviors.  Stallman has reduced himself to a Schestowitz, a creature who deserves no respect.  A troll.  I suppose in his old age, he has decided that attention is more important than our freedoms.

Richard Matthew Stallman, you are no longer relevant to our community, our world, the world of people who truly believe in and advocate for freedom, that of choice and that of the rights to study, improve, and distribute software.  Thank you for your services, for they were needed to get us where we are today.  However, you have chosen to do us no further good, only ill.  And for that, I say damn you.  Leave the Free Software Foundation and permit it to continue to work for freedom, or take it down and let the GNU project carry on to produce software without all of the utter crap that you have begun to spew of late.  I have no problem with the GNU project.  I love the GNU project.  And I am grateful for the work that you, independently and through the Free Software Foundation, have done so that we can enjoy the freedom to choose a free software system to do our work and our play.  But you are no longer helping; you have become a bully, an old troll.  You do not help free software any more.  Your recent action is a great offense to free software, and very much condemning a road which will lead to more free software.  Go away, troll.

Long live freedom—true freedom—and free software.  And thank you, Miguel de Icaza, for all of the great software that you have given us, as well, for your continued work to make software more useful and portable.  May you never wind up irrelevant and petty as Stallman has wound up being.

1. Windows 7 commits sins.
2. Windows 7 users are sinners.

The site provides a decent amount of information.  But I would imagine that a good portion of its potential readers that are linked to the site will stop reading at the domain name, windows7sins.org, just for the two very clear things it says.  Okay, so we have a very strong tie to science, but does that mean that we should alienate people from the start?  I do not think so.  If you are curious, the alleged “sins” are: poisoning education, invading privacy, monopoly behavior, lock-in, abusing standards, enforcing DRM, and threatening user security.

So, we can hold those points as true: Microsoft has done all of these things, and many more, which make supporting it as an organization something that some of us would shudder to think of, and that many more of us simply would not do if given the choice.  And that is the real key to freedom, is it not?  That we should give out the information in a way so as to reach the widest possible audience, that is.  Not that we use emotional manipulation to compel the audience to switch because then all we are doing is forcing them to feel they need to change.  Instead, users should change (or try) when they are ready—not before they are ready, and not because you offended them and made them feel dirty.  That is exactly the same tactic Microsoft uses on its customers in order to convince them of various things like “you get what you pay for,” or “if you did not pay for the software, it is pirated, it’s not legitimate,” or that free software is a form of “malware,” and so forth.  Why should we stoop down to their level?

Wait, am I saying that it is okay if users choose to use Windows?  Yes, I am.  But if Windows is the only thing that you are aware of, and it is all that you know (and believe me, there are still many such people out there) then it is naturally going to be what you are using.  So they’re a “sinner” by default, and that is offensive.  The only thing that they are guilty of is ignorance, and ignorance has a very simple fix: deliver information, let them learn of these things, and then there is no more ignorance.  For many, it is not even intentional ignorance.  They simply do not know.

I think that this campaign would have been a good thing if it did not seek to offend to make its point.  That’s resorting to a very below-the-belt tactic, and it makes the Free Software Foundation (in this case) come out looking no better than Microsoft itself which is unfortunate.  They have done the wrong thing, for the right reason, and it is constructed to make very little go their way.

So, do not refer users to the Windows 7 Sins Web site when attempting to convince them that they should not choose to upgrade to Windows 7 (or are already running it in one of its pre-release forms).  Instead, offer them information.  Explain things to them, and if they aren’t ready to try something else, whatever.  If they want to try something else, and they wind up going back to running Windows for one reason or another, then by all means, let them.  Of course, find out why they did, first, and maybe you can fix something that will eliminate a problem for others, too.

That is freedom.  It’s not free and it’s not easy.  But just remember that users have the freedom to choose, and that is a bigger freedom than what some of them will ever see or understand in free software.  And if they choose to use something we don’t like, that’s fine; it is, after all, their choice.  Who cares if it is not the choice that you would make?

Of late, however, I am extremely disappointed in our community. Maybe it is because many people have started to come into it who do not always think critically nor pride themselves on the accuracy of their perceptions. This may sound arrogant, but it certainly is not written to be. There are many people in the world who do not seem to care to spend any significant amount of time thinking about problems anymore, and they are becoming more and more, everywhere you go. I am not disappointed that we have more “mainstream” types in the community, though. I am just disappointed that the process of critical thinking seems to be disappearing from the mainstream, where truth is whoever has the loudest and most pervasive advertising and marketing.

In my own personal experience, it simply is: many people make the very strong assumption that they are correct on their stand of a position without completely analyzing their own position; sometimes the position of a person is taken on faith that their friend(s) are correct in their assertions, or on faith that the past must be an accurate prediction of the future, or on faith that the marketing messages they see/hear/read daily are correct. When did we start to think in these terms? When did we stop contemplating things and arriving at a decision based on that independent contemplation? Why?

As with any polarizing issue, there is an entire spectrum of people. At either end of the spectrum, you have people who are extremists, or “die-hards”. The ends of the spectrum are often emotionally-charged groups of people who feel that their position is correct despite everything. At either end, regardless of the position being stood for or against, the typical belief is that the other side is inherently evil, inherently incorrect, or inherently otherwise undesirable.  As one approaches the middle of the spectrum, what is seen is people who are more willing to consider the issues of both sides. By nature, these people are more prone to considering the situation in as much depth as is possible—perhaps discovering that their position was based on a flawed assumption or axiom—and (possibly) changing their mind. This is what consists of an open mind: not necessarily actually changing one’s mind blindly, but considering the facts of a situation and assessing their position based on the facts and merits of the arguments as they understand them.

An open mind is one that is willing to see the facts in the first place, not one that reacts with highly-charged word-slinging. Some days, I very nearly want nothing to do with the community, because of this highly-charged slinging going on. It is like we have become small children again, but not in a good way; not full of youth, vigor, excitement, curiosity. More in the sense that we are prone to pointless and emotionally-charged bickering and the use of strong dysphemisms when talking about Mono (such as Mono “infecting” things as if it were a self-replicating computer virus for any operating system that has runtime support for viruses installed by default), which just makes the community look like a bunch of uneducated 12-year old angry boys.

So, what is a fact? This is far too much to get into here, but it is probably sufficient for our needs to define a fact as “a statement which is as objective as can be, which is typically verifiable.” For example, it is a fact that Microsoft is a corporation, and it is a fact that I, Michael B. Trausch, am a natural person.  If we cannot agree on this so far, it is best that you leave now, and spare both of us a bit of wasted time.

Patents

Now, as I understand it, the general position of the anti-Mono crowd is based on several vague arguments. Most of these arguments center around the issue of patents. The claim is along the lines of “Mono is subject to patents by Microsoft, and therefore must be bad.” Now, first, this statement makes the implicit assumption that the Linux kernel is not potentially the subject of patents (but, it is, and by Microsoft). Note that this threat is vague, and because of that, it cannot be worked around. Though, the community has proved time and time again that it can and will react to real patent threats efficiently.

In the context of Mono specifically, there was a patent application to cover .NET, which was rejected in part due to prior art. I have yet to find a granted patent—let alone an enforceable granted patent—that covers any aspect of the ECMA or ISO specifications that Mono seeks to implement, nor the Microsoft extensions to the BCL; it took me a long time to find the patent application, truth be told. Now, should I find one that may apply, I would take the time to check and send something off in the form of a bug report or a private communication to let someone know of the issue. That is precisely how free software can get around patents, in fact: volunteers such as you and I can help defend free software from patents by finding patents and pointing them out to the developers of projects we like and use. Then, those developers can make a choice: either remove the infringing code completely, modify the code to no longer be infringing but retain its functionality, or ignore it altogether. Free software projects can be forked and so if the developers take an action that others disagree with or simply do not like, one could fork the project and apply their own choice instead (presumably remove or modify the code as opposed to ignoring the potential patent problems).

The nifty thing about patents is that in general, a software patent can be worked around if what is patented is known. If Microsoft has one way of doing something and patents it, and someone else comes up with a different way of doing the same thing, the latter cannot be affected by the patent granted to the former. A patent covers a process, not a result. This means that if Microsoft (or someone with enough time) were to identify the patents that the Linux kernel potentially infringes, the Linux kernel hackers would then have enough information to work around the patent. The same goes for any free software system, including the Mono runtime and associated development tools which are licensed under the GPL and MIT licenses.

Given the nature of software patents and what they represent, for any country, state, city, or locale which holds software patents to be valid, it is accurate to say that any software, both free and proprietary, are subject to unintentional infringement of somebody else’s patent. There is no way around this except to rally together to change the laws in your region. There is no easy out of that. For more information on that, head on over to the End Software Patents Web site.

In some regions, such as here in the United States, patents on software are either in extreme danger or disarmed completely. Currently in the United States there are several tests which a patent application must pass before being granted. A patent cannot be granted for a process that “claims ‘laws of nature, natural phenomena, [or] abstract ideas’”. Also, “a mathematical algorithm alone is unpatentable because mathematical relationships are akin to a law of nature”. Addtionally, a patent must be for something non-obvious and is not prior art. The Supreme Court is taking the case. Personally, I am awaiting that decision eagerly, as it is a chance for the Supreme Court to clarify its previous rulings and reinforce the “machine-or-transformation” test, which would spell the end for many different types of software patents, particularly those purely on software itself. Here is hoping.

Patents and the Agility of Free Software

Free software has long been something that has been attacked in one way or another by one movement or another. Early on, you paid a great deal for the hardware, and wrote most of the software yourself. People traded software, and somewhere along the way, there was rise to proprietary software. Not strangely, Microsoft’s rise was in this era. I am sure that some of you cannot even imagine this—and others of us have forgotten this—but there was once a time when there was a great majority of proprietary-only software available for common computers. Linux was only started in 1991 for the 32-bit x86, and BSD was (as far as I am aware) never ported to the pre-32-bit x86 systems. Most of those ran Microsoft’s DOS. There was “freeware” around, but that was really still proprietary software in many ways. You could get free software from bulletin board systems with source code and be permitted to modify and redistribute it if you looked around hard enough.

It amazed me to see the sheer amount of free software that was available when someone handed me a set of operating system CDs—for free—and said “check this out.” I had heard of UNIX before then, but nearly always in this capacity like it was far too costly to ever acquire or run at home. The machine I was running on at the time had DOS and Windows 3.1 on it, and I would get software either via bulletin boards (rarely) or more frequently going to the store. I never was able to modify my system, or fix anything that was wrong with it in software. Suddenly, though, there was this system that I could install that came with source code, and I could modify it in any way I pleased. I was like a kid in a candy store.

The GNU project, which has sought to implement a UNIX-like system, and the Linux kernel, make a hell of an operating system. There is, today, a very large amount of software that is BSD, GPL, MIT/X11, or otherwise freely licensed that we can use, modify, fork, experiment with, study, and expand on. Free software is about those things. It does not hurt us to have free implementations of various things that would otherwise be proprietary, because part of the reason to run free software is the fact that it is itself free.

Alas, it seems that many people think that the reason to run free software is because they hate Microsoft. Indeed, that is one reason that a person could choose to run a free operating system. And there are many to choose from; hundreds of Linux distributions (both with GNU and alternative userland components), a handful of BSD systems (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and others) and a handful of other free operating systems such as MINIX, ReactOS, or Syllable. However, for those of us who use free software because we love it, that is not (necessarily) the reason. Indeed, many of us also have feelings for Microsoft ranging from neutral to blazing hatred for their software, common business practices, or both. These people argue against Mono because they think that it means that Microsoft is somehow “infecting” the free software world and they already ran away from such an “infection” in the world of proprietary software. By this point of view, there is a great deal that such a user can never use, such as the Web. Since they continue to use technologies “infected” by the influence of Microsoft, that must not be their primary motivation.

Can patents have an adverse affect on software systems, when software is permitted to be patented? Yes. Look at the story of compress and gzip. The reason gzip came into being was because of a patent on the LZW compression scheme that affected the compress program. In that case, free software’s answer was to replace the algorithm with a new one, instead of modifying the original one. Either option would likely have been acceptable. Also look at FreeType, portions of which has code that is covered by patents owned by Apple Computer, and the solution to getting around them is disabiling them in the default build, letting people who have the lawful ability to run that code enable it manually, themselves. The community has ways to deal with and work around these things.

If there comes to light a real and specific patent threat against the Linux kernel, against the GNU core utilities, against the Mono runtime or against a piece of free software yet-to-be-written, the answer will be much the same; for something as large as Mono, a modification to circumvent the patent would be done. For something as small and replaceable as compress, a new program with a new or thought-to-be patent-free algorithm would instead be written. Potentially even, resistance would be a viable method, such as is the strategy of the EFF’s Patent Busting Project.

“It’s From Microsoft”

The other major argument that I often hear (or read) is that “Mono is from Microsoft”. Even if it were true, it is an argumentum ad hominem, which is a deceitful and fruitless argument tactic. That said, Mono is not “from Microsoft”. It is also not “from Novell,” as it was created prior to Novell acquiring Ximian.

More than one person on the Internet has quoted the following sentence given by ECMA as an answer to a query on the CLI:

Ecma does not have anything to do with possible licensing of .NET. But Microsoft is one of our members, so I have asked them whom to contact there – if anything is needed, what I just do not know.

This statement is factually correct. However, most people stop there and fail to apply their critical thinking skills—which we all have and are capable of using. ECMA indeed does not have anything to do with the licensing of .NET. .NET is Microsoft’s implementation of the ECMA and ISO standards that comprise the CLI and the BCL, including the runtime environment and the IL engine and the C# programming language. It is not the standard. .NET is distributed under a typical Microsoft EULA, with some permissions for redistribution (as is the case with many of Microsoft’s runtime libraries). Along the same lines, ECMA does not have anything to do with the licensing of Mono, which is licensed under the GPL and MIT licenses. They cannot answer questions directly pertaining to either. In short: ECMA can say nothing of an implementation. Consider this, if you asked about DHCP, and they said, “We have nothing to do with the licensing of ISC DHCPd,” it would be the same; DHCP is a protocol, a specification, and ISC DHCPd is an implementation.

This is a simple case of either the wrong question being asked, or someone along the “telephone” chain misunderstanding the question and/or rephrasing it to become incorrect. So the correct answer to the wrong question came back out. This is life.

Mono was started by the same programmer who co-founded the GNOME project (a GUI implementation), and who wrote Midnight Commander (a free software and enhanced reimplementation of the old Norton Commander program from the days of DOS), both of which are licensed under the GNU GPL, Miguel de Icaza (see the History section of the Wikipedia article of GNOME and the MC FAQ, § 10.1). This was quite some time before Ximian was acquired by Novell. Now, I am not saying that everything de Icaza has written or worked on is absolutely awesome—that would be a flawed assumption. He is an intelligent programmer and a competent leader, but that does not in and of itself mean that everything he has done has been perfect. However, GNOME, Midnight Commander, and Mono each stand on their own merits. Mono is to .NET what Midnight Commander is to Norton Commander: a free software analog to the other product which is not identical and in some (if not many) ways demonstrably superior.

In case you were caught unawares, here is a list of other technologies that Microsoft has had (at least) a part in creating or spreading: the HTTP/1.1 standard, HTTP Digest Authentication, SOAP, WSDL, Sender ID, MADCAP, DNS SRV, PPTP, many variants of the BASIC language, and many more. Many of the developments that they have put time and effort into over the years, we still benefit from today. Is Microsoft a bad company? Generally, it seems as such. But they are a company, not a person. Even still, like people, they can not be inherently good nor evil, even though their actions can be one or the other. Are they always bad? No. Are they always good? Certainly not. Are they incapable of being productive? No, they are capable of helping, even if their primary motivation is to help themselves first.

A Digression on “Law”

Freedom is something that we all must use, and pay for, or we lose it. Some of us have never had it and have to pay a price to gain it. Admittedly, this section is apt to largely only accidentally apply to non-U.S. regions of the world, so if it does not apply to you, skip it.

In the United States, we have this funny thing: we have the right to vote. On leaders. On issues. In some states in the U.S., people can even be the legislators, given sufficient motivation. This is called citizen’s initiative. Some states have both direct and indirect citizen’s initiative. But at the federal level of government here, what we have are representatives.

Now, we can write letters to our representatives and ask them to consider and raise certain issues at the federal legislature on our behalf. This of course does not work if only one of us does so, nor does it work if only a small handful of people from a certain district were to do so. It would have a significant effect, however, if many people from many districts—and in many states—were to do so. This is the power that we have as Americans to craft the laws which apply to our land. This can, of course, be used for both good and bad laws to be created. This is why we have courts. It sounds terribly basic, but it is something that we all seem to forget that we can do sometimes, or that we only think of to do for especially major atrocities. No, it is something that we can do for many things. Patent law is one of these things. If we want to assure ourselves that patent law goes away, we have a limited power to make that happen, through our representatives. Let us not forget that.

However, there is a more important set of law that we also forget about, which does not apply in any singular territory or state: actual law. That whole process that builds common law, case law. Now, I am not saying that it is okay to just blindly disobey law. But law is not crafted through the idle state of society. There are provisions in law for certain things—affirmative defenses—to make otherwise illegal things legal precisely because nothing is purely black-and-white. There is no law that says that it is unconditionally wrong to kill another person; it is not murder if you are absolutely required to kill in order to defend yourself, for example. Changes to law to add affirmative defenses sometimes occur as part of a realization that a law prohibited too many things, and laws are written, amended, and tried in courts all the time to try to find gaps or holes in the law and refine them, through new legislation or through new case law. Therefore, an action that may be illegal by statute is not necessarily illegal if there is some reasonable cause for it not to be and that reasonable cause is noted by a court or a body of legislation (such as Congress).

On some level, everyone knows this. Many people commit wanton acts of copyright infringement and do not even think twice about it, because they do not perceive it to be wrong. Some people only “pirate” copyrighted acts that are of a certain age, seeing codified law on the length of copyright as invalid and refusing to recognize it. After all, whose definition of “wrong” are we working with? There may be consequences for such actions, and people more or less accept that when they commit the action that they know to be wrong, at least as far as law is concerned. But there are certain things that, if disregarded entirely amongst an entire population, have a funny way of finding themselves to disappear from the law, either because the law is dropped from the books or because the executive branch of government no longer bothers to enforce it.

Conclusion

Before patently (ha, ha) screaming against Mono’s inclusion in various distributions, be that Gentoo, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, or $YOUR_DISTRO_HERE, think about something: Why?

Mono is no more inherently dangerous than any piece of GNU software, the Linux kernel, the various BSD-derived operating systems, or any other piece of free software. All software amounts to very specialized applications of mathematics; data is input, transformed, and output in every system. That does not matter if the data is bytes to a sound card, a stream passing through a compression program, a cryptographic encryption or hashing system, an application-layer protocol, a network-layer protocol… whatever. It does not matter. All software has risk of infringing on a patent. Not even proprietary software is safe against software patents held by others, even when the author of the softare and the backer of the legal team behind it is as wealthy as Microsoft’s.

There are certainly issues that we all—as a community—need to get together and work with. Development is not the only thing that people can do in the community. However, spreading FUD is not helpful, and it seems to be catching on these days. Are we not the very same community that worked to debunk Microsoft’s FUD, now wasting time and resources that would have better gone into the development of software, the maintainence of Web sites advocating and supporting free software, the documentation of user software and development APIs, or research on various aspects of the software (including trying to fish out potentially infringing patents and helping the community by bringing them to light)?

Freedom is not free. If you care for free software, you can help. Are you good at reading highly-obfuscated documents? If so, you could help the free software world by reading patents and trying to document them and where they apply. Are you good at reading source code? You could work together with the patent-readers to audit code and find things that are potentially covered by patents and alert someone—presumably a developer for that project, whatever it is—to the specifics so that the issue can be further investigated and dealt with in some way. Likewise, there are a ton of other ways that people can help free software to grow, help new free software projects to mature, help old ones to be maintained and/or documented, help contribute CPU cycles, disk space, or network bandwidth to projects that you care about (especially the ones that are independent and not under the umbrella of the Free Software Foundation, the GNOME Foundation or the Linux Foundation).

Yes, you can help free software out, even if you cannot fix bugs. Just help, don’t hurt. Those who are hurting us as a whole, the ones who are making us look like immature preadolecents, are doing the free software community a mighty disservice. So what if you do not like a particular piece of free software on your system? If you do not like it, remove it. If you do not like it being in your distribution, then change distributions. Do something about it. If you actually want to discuss it, then fine. Find a forum to house a rational debate on the issue. Short of that, this pointless war—like we Americans’ wars on terror and drugs—really needs to stop. After all, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” so let us not fall.

Edited at 2009-06-22T05:13:51Z to fix a typographical error.

The first two keywords in his list of keywords that shouldn’t be used are sealed and goto. Let’s take a look at sealed first.

Sealed, for those of you that are Java programmers, is like final in the context of classes. When you have a sealed class in the CLR, what you have in effect is a class that you cannot derive from. Often, this is used because you want to avoid a complex, multi-tiered hierarchy. Say you have an interface, IHeader, from which all implementations of a header must derive. You’d then have, say, a FreeformHeader, or a DateHeader, or a ListHeader, or whatever. There is no reason to support classes derived from those three; if you need another class, derive it from IHeader. The sealed keyword gives the programmer of an application library the means to enforce that with the compiler system. As is normally the case with a system where reflection is possible, these rules are not hard, fast rules. They can be worked around in various ways. They are just there to put a hurdle in the way and have you think about why you need to derive from it. If you find that you really do need to derive often from that class, you simply make it unsealed and go on about your business. Like variable visibility, sealed helps with encapsulation. Also, like taking a public field and making it private, making a previously unsealed class sealed is an API-breaking change; the inverse is not true. So, sealed is good in the right spots. Yes, you have to not be an idiot. But if you are an idiot, maybe you shouldn’t be programming…

The next one is the goto statement. Alright, so this single feature has been the subject of debate for years and years and years. It has been discussed by several people over the years in various contexts, and perhaps most famously by Dijkstra and Knuth. The whole idea is that, when used improperly, goto leads to absolutely horrible code. Horrible for the computer, since certain automatic optimizations cannot be made to work when it is improperly applied, and horrible for humans, who have to try to wade through the code that uses goto extensively. Apparently, programmers have gotten to the point of fearing goto so much that many do not even realize that it is available in languages like C#. This, I think, is absolutely terrifying. goto, when used correctly, avoids far more complexity than it creates. It has fantastic abuse potential. So, don’t be an idiot with it. I’ve only had cause to actually use goto probably three times in the last decade. goto shouldn’t be used on a regular basis, because often there are better and more structured ways to convey the idea that are much easier to follow. But if you have to spend 30 minutes trying to figure out how to avoid using a goto in a situation, you’re wasting time thinking when you could have been doing—28 minutes ago. If you think you need goto, then spend five minutes thinking about a (clean!) way to do it without it. If you can’t find a single way, then you have a few different possible situations: (a) your programming language sucks, and doesn’t have the features you need to cleanly implement the problem, (b) you don’t know your programming language all that well, and you need to spend more time learning it before trying to use it extensively, or (c) you actually do need a goto statement there to make the code easier to follow.

I’m not going to tear apart the rest of the keywords that are in the list of things that should be avoided—most of them are very similar to these first two; you have to be aware of what they do and you have to use them properly. If you can’t use them properly, you don’t need to be writing code in the language. I’m reminded of my Java teacher in school, who claimed to have been a programmer since the 1970s, and yet hadn’t heard of Knuth’s writings. (Yeah, either she was a complete moron, or lying. I think the probability is probably roughly equal in either direction.) This woman had all sorts of issues with the way that I was writing my code in that class. I try to write to make code as humanly readable and maintainable as possible. I’ve been writing software for years, and I’ve learned that writing code that is humanly readable and maintainable is the only way to do it, and so I’ve made it into a habit. So much of a habit that I tend to code like this no matter if the thing I am writing is a complex system that is being used by a business, or a one-off application that only I will be using over and over again for a time, or even for an assignment.

Because of my coding for readability, and using features of Java that were accessible to me (because I’m already a programmer) but were outside of the scope of the book, I got marked down. A lot.

For example, one of the assignments was to create a small (relatively static) Inventory program. There was no expectation of persistent storage, but the program had to be able to add items to the inventory and take them away. The first time I wrote the program, I went to seek out some form of storage that was more powerful than an array. Lo, I found the generic ArrayList. It was perfect for the problem. So, of course, I used it. What did I get? A “D”. The instructor said “you are supposed to use an array.” I asked her where in the requirements it said that. Seriously, she was expecting these other people in the class to use arrays and manage the array size themselves? A real WTF moment there. She claimed that it was too complex. No, really, she did. Yet, the ArrayList introduced a great deal of simplicity. Whatever.

So, for the next assignment, I re-wrote the program to use plain arrays. Of course, in order to do that (and fit with the requirements that you have to seamlessly grow and shrink), I wrote the program such that it used an array and a counter of items. The counter indicated how many entries in the array were valid, and the array started off twice as large as it needed to be. If, in the course of adding an item to the inventory, the array ran out of storage, the program would grow the array by 33% of its current size, rounded up to the next whole item. When items were “deleted” from the array, they’d simply be put in the first “invalid” array location, and the array’s contents after the deletion point shifted up by one. Her response to that was that the program was too complex. Well, damnit, I would agree with that assessment, that’s why I used an ArrayList in the first place! Her response to that was, “well, you can assume that the array will never have to grow, and that I’ll never delete items unless they are at the end of the array when testing your program anyway.” Essentially, she was advocating horrible design. I can’t say that I agreed with that at all, even in the slightest, especially in a classroom environment.

Anyway, this guy—Justin Etheredge—who wrote this article on keywords that ought not to be used? Essentially, I would say the same thing. Yes, there are keywords on his list that don’t make sense to use frequently. If you use ref and out in your arguments often, that is a sure sign that you’re doing something in a way that leaves something (usually cleanliness or stench) to be eliminated later. But sometimes, they’re just the right tool and you need to pull them out of the toolbox to use. Let us not forget about our friends that we have inside of programming languages; do not advocate the elimination of goto, or ref, or out, when we have the ability to instead educate on the proper uses of these things. goto is a *very* handy tool to have around, for example, when you apply the DRY principle to your programming work. Sometimes you’re repeating variables and sometimes you’re repeating entire code segments just to try to get away from goto. No, that’s not correct, nor is it elegant.

What’s the moral, here? Program intelligently. Do not avoid things out of fear. Instead, learn about them and use them elegantly. Those who follow you in development and maintenance will thank you.