It’s no secret that we here at WotG support and use Free Software whenever and wherever possible. Several of us use a form of Linux as at least a secondary OS, and many others use at least free-beer tools to write articles, create artwork, record our podcasts, or even maintain the site.

With that said, we are also pragmatic enough to believe in “the right tool for the right job.” Richard Stallman may not like hearing it, and anyone can argue about the manipulation of the marketplace to make it this way, but the simple fact is that there are some questions to which Free Software isn’t the best answer. Despite our clear preference for FLOSS, we also use some proprietary stuff to keep the place working.

I mention this right up front, so you’ll understand where I’m coming from in the following article.

There exists a small, lightweight window manager for X known as Ion. Now, just so we’re all on the same page, “window manager” refers to the program that allows the user to manipulate (move, resize, etc.) onscreen windows, usually by drawing a titlebar with buttons across the top of the window in what has become GUI SOP since the days of the Apple Lisa. (Newbie note: Contrary to what you may have heard elsewhere, GNOME, KDE, and Xfce are not window managers, but rather desktop environments that include a window manager as a component of a larger, usually integrated suite. But I digress.) Ion takes a different approach than most common window managers, in that it uses a “tiling” metaphor. In other words, windows do not overlap in Ion; instead, each application is given its own dedicated “frame” onscreen (the default is for each app to start fullscreen), up to as many as the user feels can be realistically usable, and (with rare exceptions, such as file requesters and other transient windows) no part of any one frame overlaps any part of any other.

Here’s a screenshot of a typical Ion session (not mine), just so you can see what I’m talking about.

Ion also differs from most common window managers in that the mouse, while supported, is unnecessary for most purposes. Virtually all interaction with Ion itself is done via keyboard controls. For you CLI gurus out there, think of Ion as a trumped-up, X-aware version of GNU Screen, and you’ll get the basic gist of it. For everyone else, this means that your fingers never have to leave the keyboard to accomplish such mundane tasks as switching active windows, resizing the current frame to give (say) your editing window more room than your browser, or even opening a new terminal window. This does have the side effect of making Ion considerably less “friendly” to those who are used to more common GUI models, but if you keep an open mind and are willing to learn, the basics of Ion can be mastered surprisingly quickly, especially if one happens to be a fast typer. It’s certainly not for everyone, of course, and I would never recommend Ion to a first-time Linux convert; then again, that’s why there are so many different brands of beer or pizza, because everyone’s tastes are different. (In fairness, I will add that Ion does include a more traditional “floating” window-management mode for running apps that don’t particularly care for the tiling model, such as The GIMP and several media players, but it must be user-enabled.)

I mention this not so much to advertise Ion, as to explain what it is for those who may be curious.

What do these two points (FLOSS advocacy and a non-traditional window manager) have to do with each other? Therein lies one of the more bizarre stories in the Free Software world during 2007 – and one that should, if nothing else, make you think about where it’s all leading.

The principal author of Ion, a Finnish programmer by the name of Tuomo Valkonen, is a noted activist in several causes, mostly of an anti-corporate and pro-environment nature (no pun intended). He’s also a man of somewhat strident beliefs, and has been known to be… rather less that politic… in expressing his unique views on the world and humanity’s place in it. Over time, support for features Valkonen has deemed “unnecessary” or that run counter to his beliefs, such as Xinerama (he believes running more than one monitor per computer adds to cosnpicuous consumption) and the standard Xft font-rendering engine for X (it defaults in most cases to antialiased, or “blurry,” text, which he despises), has been removed from Ion’s development branch, but users for whom this support is, if not necessary, at least desirable for their use of the program have added it back via the use of patches. Many Linux distributions (including Debian, Ubuntu, and Arch) have also not updated their development snapshots of Ion often enough for his taste; some even included such outdated versions (dating back almost two years in some cases) as part of a finalized distro version.

Valkonen’s response was to rewrite the Ion license (based on the LGPL) requesting that distributions update any development version of Ion within no more than 28 days, regardless of “version freezes,” and that any Ion distibuted with “unapproved” patches must not be called “Ion” or any derivative thereof.

If you’ve followed the Linux and/or FLOSS communities for any appreciable length of time, you can probably guess what happened next. If you said “lots of complaining and whining on mailing lists and message boards about Valkonen and his ‘unreasonable’ demands,” give yourself a cookie.

Valkonen’s typically abrasive nature didn’t help matters either – particularly when Arch Linux became the first distro to feel his wrath for not complying with the patch clause. On an Arch mailing list, he sent a bug report that demanded Arch either rename their Ion package or cease distribution of it, with a veiled threat of legal action if they didn’t do so. That did it. Almost immediately the mailing list turned into the proverbial river of flame, with Arch developers attacking Valkonen for his uncompromising standards and Valkonen getting angrier with each attempt to obfuscate his (in his mind) perfectly reasonable requests.

It got to the point where a frustrated Valkonen actively turned on all Free Software. On his website and personal blog, he began pounding out one anti-FLOSS epistle after another, all with a similar theme to them – that the FLOSS development model was fundamentally broken (since it took away the basic right of the original author to have the final say over his own code), that Free Software developers were far more interested in mimicking Microsoft Windows than in actually coming up with a better alternative, and that the entire concept of the “home computer” has become dumbed-down to the point where “power users” have become (in his view) a persecuted minority by the armies of the status quo. In one of his more acid-laced tirades he declared the whole of Linux as having become “a steaming pile of s___,” referred to the modern computer as an “idiot box,” and accused the Free Software Foundation of being little better than Microsoft in terms of wanting absolute control over every bite of code under their auspices, yet they are still seen as “the good guys” by the supposedly unthinking “FOSS herd,” simply because they are not Microsoft. Any true innovation that comes from MS, Valkonen claims, is immediately denounced by the FLOSS mindset as evil and irredeemable… yet they seem to have no problems attempting to duplicate this supposedly “evil and irredeemable” code for their own.

Granted that Valkonen is hardly a Mr. Nice Guy of the Internet; one look through his blog should divorce anyone from that opinion in about five nanoseconds. He doesn’t care one whit about being liked or even likable. He has very strong views on software design and life in general, and refuses to compromise his beliefs for anyone or any purpose. In this regard, he’s a lot like the supposed “patron saint” of the Free Software movement, the equally controversial Richard M. Stallman. The creator of Emacs and founder of the GNU project is every bit as uncompromising in his “non-Free Software has no right to exist” views as Valkonen is in his. It’s enough to make me wonder what the result of a Hell in a Cell match between these two diametrically opposed type-A personalities would be.

But if you get past the invective and the high-nosed technosnobbery of Valkonen’s diatribes… he makes an awfully good point sometimes. Maybe the Free Software world is too concerned with reinventing the wheel. Maybe we do tend to put too much emphasis on ideology over functionality, style over content. Maybe we are so “brainwashed” into thinking we know the One True Way a computer should work that we’ve blinded ourselves to the idea that alternatives may exist, let alone may actually be better than what we’re used to. And maybe there shouldn’t be so much of an obsession with Microsoft in the FLOSS community, both from an advocacy standpoint and from a developer’s perspective.

Or maybe Valkonen is just another disgruntled elitist with more axes to grind than a lumberjack convention, the likes of which are all too common on this wonderful thing we call the Internet. Or even more cynically, maybe it’s just an attempt by him to get more awareness of his decidedly “niche” window manager – or just his viewpoints – out in the open.

I don’t know about you, but I think he’s just a nutjob. A talented nutjob in terms of programming, but a nutjob all the same. Regardless, his writings should at least make you think about your reasons for using, or writing, Free Software, and the direction it’s headed. As extreme as some of his views may be (he appears to want all automobiles banned, for example), it’s his less-bizarre opinions that are worth sifting through the crap to find.

As always, feel free to discuss your opinions below.

If you liked that, try...

1. Open Source Alternatives to Your Software
2. Microsoft’s Top 25 Open Source Projects
3. Apple Open Source Still Alive
4. Run Your Mac or Windows Fonts on Linux!
5. Novell could be banned from selling Linux

10 Comments »

1. 
   Migo
   December 23, 2007 at 1:55 pm

   I think both points are right, in their own way. A lot of the FLOSS community has buried their head in the sand to the idea that there might be a better way of doing things, and they do tend to obsess far too much about Microsoft. Valkonen also seems to suffer from the same problem, however. So, there’s no real answer here or even a compromise. It’s just two idiots (regardless of intelligence, if you have no common sense you’re an idiot) puffing their chest out and trying to be the alpha-nerd.

   I may only be a web developer, but I usually either release my code under the BSD license and our content under the Creative Commons license. It gives a lot more flexibility and if I need to change it, there’s no real problem.

   If someone can point me to a better way of doing things, I’m always open so suggestions. The problem here is neither side seems to keep an open mind anymore.

   [Reply]
2. 
   antifud
   December 27, 2007 at 8:37 am

   This article is ill-informed FUD — half-truths at best — wrt. the views of tuomov.

   * He does not care whether users add support for features with patches: the problem is distros “silently forking” by applying patches and not renaming.

   * The license was changed _after_ the Arch controversy, their behaviour being the “last drop”.

   * The paragraph beginning “It got to the point where frustrated …” fuses several disconnected arguments into new ones, which are not the ones tuomov has made.

   * He does not want all cars banned — just all cars in cities (a growing movement; cf. http://carfree.com/ , http://worldcarfree.net/ ).

   RTF original source, the blog, instead of this argument-twisting FUD.

   [Reply]
   Corvus Reply:
   December 29th, 2007 at 7:40 am

   The fact that you believe this article to be a deliberate attack on Valkonen is just sad. Is the author misinformed? If so, provide better information. Your argument is lost amid your strident attack on the author in Valkonen’s defense.

   [Reply]

   Devin de Gruyl Reply:
   December 29th, 2007 at 11:20 am

   And the strange thing is, I didn’t think I was attacking Tuomo as much as he evidently did. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt as much as I could; I’ve seen many other articles about the Ion situation that classify him as a grade-A lunatic, forever lashing out at anything and anyone that doesn’t jibe with his personal view of what a user interface should be.

   In fact, the whole point of this article was to get past the rhetoric and perceived invective of Valkonen’s editorials and point out what I thought were several good points he made, ones that are generally lost on the majority of the FLOSS community due to Tuomo’s inherent prickly nature and his increasingly anti-FLOSS attitudes.

   [Reply]

3. 
   antifud
   December 29, 2007 at 8:57 am

   I did provide better information on various points.

   [Reply]
   Devin de Gruyl Reply:
   December 29th, 2007 at 11:40 am

   I’ll consider myself duly corrected on the car point, but will in my defense point out that the verbiage I used in my original statement (”seems to,” “appears”) allowed for the possibility I was misinterpreting Valkonen’s stance on that issue. Ditto for the rationale behind the patch clause, which I actually thought at first I had covered (he’s cool with it, he just doesn’t want the patched packages called “Ion” as that would imply the patched package was official).

   As far as the Arch blowup, I think (key word: “think”) you might be slightly confused; my notes show that it was actually Debian that caused the change in license, for the reasons you describe. The original post to the tur-users (Arch) mailing list by Tuomo was made after the changes to the license were made… or at least, that’s the info I have. If my info’s wrong, then I’ll again consider myself corrected on that point.

   One thing I won’t be apologizing for is my opinion, which last I checked I was entitled to. Just to clarify it: I give Valkonen full marks for being a talented coder, as well as an unconventional thinker with some unique and valid ideas in the realm of computer-interface design. OTOH, his attitude of late has smacked of “I’m taking my ball and going home,” which never sets well with me and does his image absolutely no favors. Brilliant programmer he may be, but no one will ever accuse him of being a “people person”; that’s his right, of course, but it’s not something that’s going to endear the guy to me personally.

   Hopefully that clears it up a little bit, at least enough so that you don’t write me off…

   [Reply]

   Devin de Gruyl Reply:
   December 29th, 2007 at 11:46 am

   One more thing: I’m no fan of RMS either, for precisely the same reason - like Valkonen, he’s a bit too extreme in his views for my taste, even though I agree with him in principle. A generally antagonistic attitude on his part to anyone who doesn’t share his viewpoints doesn’t help either.

   [Reply]

   antifud Reply:
   December 29th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

   License change was threatened when Debian was intending to include a broken development snapshot of Ion in Etch http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2007-March/000998.html . But Debian eventually yielded, and the license was only changed after Valkonen became pissed off with the behaviour of Arch https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2007-April/001169.html

   As for other ill-informed points, you write “accused the Free Software Foundation of being little better than Microsoft in terms of wanting absolute control over every bite of code under their auspices”, when in actuality “the FSF is actually among the saner end of the FOSS movement, what with GFDL including invariant sections, and GPLv3 containing provisions for requiring modified versions to be renamed or so. The real zealots are centered around the distros, and only consider those licenses “free” that give distros the most power at the expense of authors” http://www.mail-archive.com/ion-general@lists.berlios.de/msg02456.html as well as “this brings opportunity for the high priests of the movement – who may not be associated at all with the original propagators of the ideas that the movement claims to serve – to exploit this blind following/faith towards their own ends” http://iki.fi/tuomov/b/archives/2007/12/22/T17_06_48/ .

   Also “that the FLOSS development model was fundamentally broken (since it took away the basic right of the original author to have the final say over his own code)” fuses two somewhat disconnected arguments (development model, licenses) into a new one.

   [Reply]

   Corvus Reply:
   December 30th, 2007 at 3:17 am

   Not the first time, you didn’t. You provided one source and a bunch of “I said so”. Next time provide backup the first time instead of hollering about FUD.

   [Reply]

4. 
   antifud
   December 29, 2007 at 12:59 pm

   Might I also remind that Debian considers GFDL with invariant sections “non-free” (and originally all of GFDL, but they had to yield).

   Also compare Valkonen complaining how authors are reduced to “workhorses for the distributions” with Debian complaining how they’re being reduced to exactly that for Ubuntu, who would not report changes back to Debian — something which distributions including Debian do not tend to extend back to upstream authors.

   [Reply]

Leave a comment