Nearly every comment is missing his take given the title here.
He's not saying everything should be open source.
He's saying that the right to have an open source version of anything is what we should be absolutists about.
So not that every OS, or encryption, or AI model should be open - but that people should fight and stand up for the right to have access to open OSes, encryption, or AI models if produced.
Windows can exist, but shouldn't be able to prevent Linux from existing basically.
That's the absolutism. He hasn't suddenly turned into Stallman.
>> a great many of the software tools used by the most powerful companies in the world are the exact same ones available to hospitals, students, and everyone else. For free. And not just to use, but to inspect, modify, extend, and redistribute.
That does not say that open source is great because it copies closed source.
Nor does the term "absolutism."
Carmack is pushing for open source, just like the title would imply.
Noticed the same recently but with some others such as nitter.tux.pizza but with the main instance working (which I’ve avoided cuz it seemed like it was overrun for a good 1-2 months)
Speaking of which, doom being released as free software has led, indirectly, to this being nanoWADmo, national wad creating month, where people make doom maps. The community is thriving all these years later, you should see modern doom mega wads by people like skillsaw. There are hundreds of these projects
Back in the 90s, there were legal battles in the US over software capable of strong encryption. There were scare stories about how terrorists and child pornographers would use the technology to evade justice, but people were also wearing T-shirts printed with forbidden code to mock the idea of algorithms too dangerous to share.
It was stupid, and I was ashamed of the regulatory state, but we got better.
we have not gotten any better. our t-shirt snark has, regrettably, faded.
I especially would like formats and protocols to be open source and freely available. Do you remember the state of digital video in the 90s, 2000s? Absolute clusterfuck of codecs, players, really ugly software being pushed upon users because they were the only way to play a specific piece of media. The UX sucked, people hated it, so codec pack installers, and then free players that bundled codecs became popular, VLC became popular, then streaming video became popular, and now we were back to square one, because no two browser supported the same video formats. But in the meantime Matroska came along, then Google bought a company with a good codec and open sourced it, and a bunch of streaming providers banded together to work on future formats, and the very similar audio advancements were bundled in the mix. And so, now we have a great, open source, royalty-free video container, a bunch of great video formats, audio formats. Browsers support it, smart appliances support it, hardware can have decoders for it, and everyone is better off because of this. It's a huge investment to iron out the details, but the pipes are infrastructure. Private ownership, and rent extraction only makes it worse, but if they are free / belong to the commons, then a lot of great things can be built on top of that.
I remember him being very pro Windows. If so then this is a welcome change of spirit. I hope he is daily driving a Linux system at home and I hope everyone else here does as well.
He was very pro Windows because Windows' development tools are simply much better (yeah yeah I know your pimped emacs with a stack of 25 scripts/plugins to interface with gdb is so much more productive than Visual Studio's debugger, bravo...).
It wasn't the sort of anti-linux sentiment that you're implying.
I would say the pimped out emacs is probably better than everything _except_ visual studio.
VS is hands down the best IDE in the world, bar none. And I say this as someone who runs linux on everything except my gaming pc and my work laptop.
Once you step outside of visual studio though ... nothing compares with those setups (I use vim, but the sentiment is the same). It's because you have easy access to the entire OS, not anything specific to vim/emacs (although there's a lot of great things to say about them too).
Yeah, I don't use Visual Studio very often any more because it's not enough better than the alternatives to make up for being Windows-only, but I do quite regularly miss it.
these days, .net/asp.net core mostly, but I've been using the IDE's since before they were combined (Visual C++, etc).
I definitely think it's better.
Often rider lags behind understanding newer C# languages and .net features and the debugger is slower to launch in rider (rider in general is slower than VS in my experience). I also find rider slower in general and I think features rider has are mis-features.
If you're coming from a java background with IntelliJ experience then rider will probably feel more comfortable in terms of UI philosophies, keybindings, etc, and I'm not trying to discount comfort, but even technically I don't think rider can touch VS.
And I'm not discounting rider, I'm saying VS really is that good. It's not perfect by any means, but even on technical merit alone I think rider loses.
And I have a jetbrains "all inclusive" license, I'm a huge fan of their tools. I just don't think rider is as good as VS. If VS were ever ported to linux I'd stop using Rider alltogether.
Although I will admit, I can't like DataGrip and I've really tried. Just something about it doesn't sit well with my sensibilities, I think because it tries to be jack of all things data wise and it loses something as a result.
Dependency management for any C/C++ project in Windows sucks compared to Linux. If you really want a Microsoft IDE, VS Code runs natively on Linux and has all the debugging capabilities of VS.
More so than just using closed source software, since Bill Gates' Open Letter To Hobbyists in 1976 Microsoft has been the biggest opponent to the sharing of software in the world. If you care about open source do not give them a dime.
Kind of tangential, but I'm really saddened by Id not releasing the source code to their engines since Doom 3 BFG-ish. I know he doesn't work there anymore, but I got reminded earlier today when Linus (of techtips fame) lamented the fact that there's only a single game that runs on the fantastic Id tech 7 engine.
At least Demonware will get direct unlicensed access to their netcode when Microsoft finally buys them.
Would it be ironic if he typed it on an iPhone? Or transmitted it over a public spectrum licensed exclusively to some carrier? Or washed his hands with soap purchased from a store?
It’s ok to use non-FLOSS things. But it’s bad to ban FLOSS or be confused over whether something is or is not FLOSS.
He's referencing the 90s crypto wars which he covered earlier in his comment. The cryptographers won that round when DJB won his lawsuit vs the US govt that resulted in software being considered speech:
Absolutism includes the right to repair (our software) which extends to the right to reverse engineer. Unfortunately those are both untenable at the moment as there is no legal mechanism to support or fight for those rights
To create such a mechanism there needs to be an open source union that doesn't just help people with x y or z license.
Just like how the unions fought for workers rights, this OSS union would fight for digital and coder's rights.
Please correct me if I am wrong here, but did he take this position also when meta made occulus as closed as possible?
Running any opensource stuff on it?
Connecting it to an free operating system?
You could not even buy one here, at least not without selling your personal data.
I have a unpleasant feeling that this well intended talk is only a move to protect his future work and foremost business.
He is not anti-proprietary, he is just criticising the arguably moronic notion that open-source AI tools need to be banned or regulated just because they are "too dangerous" in public hands. That's all the argument is about.
John didn't own the company. He wasn't CEO either. He may not have had the clout to override the investors who would call shots such as that. And unlike every other VR software company circa 2011, Oculus made a LOT of money for its investors, mostly by being Apple-like with its restrictions.
His point is allow open source not only use open source.
"Be a Free Speech Absolutist".
> Open Source AI is in many people’s crosshairs today. They believe that giving free access to state of the art algorithms and models without any guardrails constitutes a danger to society, that the public can’t be entrusted...
> In the spirit of the first amendment, congress should make no law abridging the freedom to release open source software.
I.e. Stop AI from becoming the modern version of prohibited encryption. [1]
I seem to recall he wasn't happy about it, but don't recall where he said that or what the details were. Could be wrong, wasn't paying that close attention. He also left after a while without immediately moving on to something else, so it seems he was unhappy about something there.
I am a firm believer in open source, with the caveat that authors should always and everywhere have ultimate say over how to release their own work, never legislators or courts. FOSS may be the morally and technically preferable choice for many projects but is not inherently superior, and there are several advantages to going proprietary - plenty of examples where paid software is actually higher quality, regardless of whether it is developed in the open. This is also likely to be the case with ML software. If you want nice things then pay for them, but ultimately authors should be able to retain full creative freedom and executive control over their own software and let the marketplace decide.
How would you access the source code of an encrypted program after copyright expiration if the author is dead and gives no one the keys? You might be thinking of public domain?
Nope. I support open source and personally release all my work in the open, but also support authors' freedom to distribute their own work however they wish and users' freedom to choose between them. These are fully consistent views.
Tangental, but twitter is really nice for thoughts like this.
It loads (fast). There's no obnoxious modals or even ads. The whole article's available in plain text. It gives a view/like count. Commenting is frictionless and via a well-established method, and authors often follow up answering questions.
It's my preferred way of reading text on the web. Maybe 2nd to old school personal websites (since they're less likely to get deleted - I don't quite trust twitter to not do that).
I think that Carmack is really savvy. He is being effective in his messaging by using a popular platform. I almost got offended because he didn't say free software but he straight up listed the four freedoms. And Doom got open sourced so he lives it. I think Carmack is on the side of right; there are no true Scotsmen.
Would you rather post it on a social network that nobody uses in a video format that lacks quality like Stallman does?
Anyway, maybe I'm getting this wrong but I don't think he's saying that everything has to be 100% open source. He's talking about the tools we need to build everything, that backbone of the software.
Twitter open sources some things [1], but they're not really doing anything groundbreaking or making any real advances in software. Even if they were to open source 100% of their tech, it wouldn't move the needle much.
Why, is HN open-sourced? Is Reddit? I don't get this argument. The whole point is that we don't have to spin up our own open-sourced blog and host it ourselves just to post an opinion on the Internet anymore.
What about open source learning martial arts and excercising a lot?
The fear of someone else's potential to harm is meaningless without some idea what you propose to do about it, and having that idea be at at all remotely tolerable or even sane.
It doesn't matter how scared you are of the possibility of a drone or anything else, since you can be afraid of litetally infinite possible things. What matters is, is there anything that you have any reasonable right to do about it? Can you prevent open source drones that could somehow be used to harm you, without causing a million times more harm to everyone else just to make you feel safer?
Open source kamikaze drones, ok sure, what, precicely, about them? Finish your thought. I await amazement.
Do you believe everyone has the right to RPG weapons? Nuclear weapons? What do you think the substantial difference is between an RPG and a kamikaze drone?
Meta question, but is there a name for this phenomenon? When someone asks a question to "prove a point" using outlandish analogies (RPG's, nuclear weapons, kamikaze)? I see this frequently in online discussions.
And yet I still don't hear any answer to a very basic question that is in fact relevant and pertinent.
Let's rewind and pretend I agreed.
"Right! That is crazy! We should... wait, what should we do?"
It doesn't matter how terrible something is if there is nothing to be done about it. What is the point in saying that it's literally the end of the world if a nova goes off 30 light years away? It would be, and it could happen any time. We should... what?
The terrible thing you expressed is not actually a thing that can be isolated and managed, because there is no such atomic distinct unit as a kamikaze drone. The thing that you have pointed out that is so dangerous is any human in the world having any free will at all.
There is no motte and fucking baily
In fact I even DID respond to your moronic RPG/nuke hyperbole even though it was disingenuous and an attempt to deflect.
> In fact I even DID respond to your moronic RPG/nuke hyperbole
You need to calm down.
Carmack posits you should be an "absolutist." Always and anything open source, 100%. I pointed out an obvious contradiction, with parallels to the same ridiculous argument "2A" advocates put forth. There are clear red lines that almost the entire population agrees shouldn't be crossed. They fly in the face of "absolutist" and maximalist hyperbole about having things to 100%. Any weapon for anyone. Open source can be used for the same extremely dangerous weapons that almost everyone agrees isn't something a society wants proliferated.
The Bailey is open source absolutism, and when challenged with a case that shows this absolutism maybe isn't so great, the Motte is "all i'm saying is open source is good ok, why are you mentioning dangerous weapons"
Saying "absolutist" is a (btw, completely transparent if you didn't already realize) way to try to make a position sound unreasonable, but I say it all depends on the position. "Why do you have to be so absolutist about keeping slaves, sheesh we already freed like 80% of them we only wanna keep like one maid and one yard hand, let's dial back the emotional hysteria..."
A statement like this tweet is obviously a sound bite and a conversation sparker. And yet, go ahead and say how it's not reasonable. Go ahead and unpack how it's not actually literally possible or would be worse for everyone in the long run.
I at least am not even trying to suggest this Stallman level of purity for real, but, I also defy anyone to prove that it's actually an invalid idea that is the tiniest bit bad for humanity or even business. The way I see it, I forgive 99% of people for being too weak to figure out and stick to what's right, and I forgive that at least 50% because I have to count myself in that group, so, it's really only self-serving graciousness, yet more human weakness (as is calling it human weakness rather than my weakness), but at least I acknowledge that it's a failing, not a virtue. Stallman, and anyone else suggesting this absolutist ideal in this area, are actually right. We're all just too shitty and basic to eat broccoli once in a while and must have burgers and coke, Every. Single. Time. because fuck the tiniest bit of inconvenience today for 100x better tomorrow.
What is an open source kamikaze drone composed of, and which of those parts do you think can be controlled, and how?
I have some disturbing news for you, every rando in the world already has free access to all the materials, tools, and info needed to make all those scary sounding weapons. Anyone can already bomb buildings or even shoot planes out of the sky. The extra exotic controlled materials that governments have access to don't actually matter. They just give them slight tactical advantages in wars. If someone wants to bomb a bridge, or a whole city, they don't need a nuclear bomb. If they want to destroy a tank or shoot a person, they don't need a fancy depleted uranium bullet. Ordinary materials are already quite good enough to build quit good enough canons and missiles etc, and the knowledge is just ordinary engineering. You can't build a bicycle without knowing enough engineering to be able to design a functional gun from scratch. I could design, fabricate, and fire an 'RPG' right now, and so could you.
An "open source kamikaze drone" is like that. It's made up entirely out of ordinary generic knowledge and materials. Their potential has existed ever since the first electric motor and radio. It doesn't even require any software or even any ICs.
If that alarms you, well it must be terrible to require assurance that no one else has the power to harm you, yet live in a universe that you aren't the god of.
For better or for worse, most of the code running on kamikaze drones these days is open source. Radio Control link, flight control software, ESC firmware.. a lot of it is open source hardware too.
Why not? In fact weaponizable software should be the first thing to be open-sourced so that everyone studies them and adopts countermeasures, instead of them being a secret privy only to shady parties.
He's not saying everything should be open source.
He's saying that the right to have an open source version of anything is what we should be absolutists about.
So not that every OS, or encryption, or AI model should be open - but that people should fight and stand up for the right to have access to open OSes, encryption, or AI models if produced.
Windows can exist, but shouldn't be able to prevent Linux from existing basically.
That's the absolutism. He hasn't suddenly turned into Stallman.