...or, did Antitrust get it right?
We've all heard of the movie Antitrust, and some of us have gone to see it; I went last night. There's no doubt that, as a movie, it's nothing exceptional--I think the Salon review is spot-on. But the movie is interesting thing to talk about from another standpoint: it's really the first big appearance of free software as a significant plot element in mass-market entertainment.
So how were our ideas portrayed?
The first thing that jumps out is the exclusive use of the term "Open Source" instead of "free software". In my own circle, we generally speak of free software, but I've met free software programmers who use the arguably more marketable "Open Source"; certainly today's media almost exclusively does.
My own take on this is that, in this film at least, terminology is the least important flaw--other problems rather overshadow the naming scheme.
Community
The second thing that jumps out is the total lack of community in the film. There is no mention whatsoever of the free software community, by any name at all. This is highlighted by antihero Gary's repeated assertions that "any kid in a garage" could put him out of business. The idea that a community might be involved--needed, even--went unmentioned.
Really, this is in some ways symptomatic of a classic storytelling rule: you need a hero. Were Milo merely representing a far-flung community of free software coders he would have been even less of a character than he was, and the story would have suffered. All this is nothing new, of course; anyone familiar with the writings of David Brin will instantly recognize one of his favorite themes: in "neo-Western" civilization, single individuals (ie heros) aren't key; rather, flocks of highly individualistic people collectively form correct outcomes.
The power of the individual is even asserted with regard to programming skill: apparently Milo's programming capabilities are such that all of NURV cannot meet a deadline in three weeks without him. From Brooks to DeMarco and Lister, we know that this is absurd: there is no way to bring Milo into an existing large (proprietary!) project quickly, and it is vanishingly improbable that anyone would be very far outside the 10x productivity range usually found among programmers (heck, he'd have to be 1,000x as productive as the average programmer to make a dent in a NURV schedule).
Free Software Ideology
The first two areas probably wouldn't even be fatal in a portrayal of free software, were there not a further flaw. Nowhere in the movie is the actual meaning of free software covered. Sure, there are occasional vague references to an "Information wants to be free" cypherpunk-esque ideology, but these are rather off the mark. The very plot undermines even this modest explanation in a number of ways. Consider:
So all this nitpicking aside, this movie is remarkably useless as an example of anything to do with free software. It's really quite a bummer.
Technical
While not free software-specific, it was encouraging to see the significant improvements Hollywood has made in portraying technical computer use. Entirely plausible Java-like source code flickered by; Unix-like command lines were used, and of course many screens were patterned after an actual--even a free--desktop environment. The occasional UPS on a desk and Hollywood's strange obsession with "sneakernet" stood out, of course, but these are pretty minor things. The last movie I saw about programmers was Hackers; the improvement here is really night and day.
Conclusion
Well, that's what I thought, anyway: the movie was mildly entertaining at best, and the portrayal of free software was rather poor.
What does everyone else think?
The story of Free Software can be a great movie plot. Think someone plays Bill Gates at Harvard writing Microsoft Basic using the computer room on campus, while in the same school RMS was working on his physics degree and hacking across town in the AI Labs of MIT... and the rest of the history...
Any taker from Hollywood?
I saw the movie yesterday, and you've hit it spot-on.
I was even rather dissappointed with the use of said free desktop environment. All that says to me is, we have succeeded in producing window managers and GUI's that are acceptable hollywood fodder. Is this a positive accomplishement? As its best, hollywood occasionally comes up with a hypothetical computer interface that is radical enough to excite the imagination (although I can't remember the last time I saw one in a movie). At its worst, it just churns out pretty pictures that rehash prior art. I see X every day; I don't need to go to the movies to do so.
I see X every day; I don't need to go to the movies to do so.ah, but other people do: such people are genuinely quite impressed about the three-button mouse thing on netscape, but that's pushing it for hollywood.
^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:37:10] >(CrackMonkey) okaye ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:37:23] >(CrackMonkey) THINGS I LEARNED FROM A MOVIE CALLED "ANTITRUST" ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:37:40] >(CrackMonkey) 1) monopolies are all about sending thugs to beat coders up and videotape them coding. ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:38:05] >(CrackMonkey) 2) women are all spies and props, and treacherous fiends-- geeks should not trust women! ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:38:31] >(CrackMonkey) 3) if there's someone in your start-up of East Asian descent, he will be murdered by Oregonian hate patrols. DO NOT HIRE HIM!I ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:38:48] <Zen> Now I have to see this movie.s movie. ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:38:50] >(CrackMonkey) 4) If you meet a Justice department agent who is of African descent, he is a MOLE ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:39:08] >(CrackMonkey) the whole thing is set in oregonn oregon ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:39:10] >(CrackMonkey) like ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:39:11] >(CrackMonkey) ha-ha ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:39:15] >(CrackMonkey) PNW tech company company ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:39:19] >(CrackMonkey) giggle giggle ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:39:26] <Zen> Guffaw. ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:39:34] >(CrackMonkey) oh yeah oh yeah ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:39:35] <emad> snort ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:39:42] <Zen> Chortle.C ^@ nick@pts/26> [01/14/01 @ 22:40:24] >(CrackMonkey) 5) broadcasting heavily-edited music-video style images of CEOs and murder videos constitutes "evidence"
Sorry about that. I'm more accustomed to using lynx or w3m to navigate this. I'm not used to hitting Enter in the title box to save the whole message. GAR. Also, this little mozilla text box is far inferior to just popping up $EDITOR.
Anyway, log spew aside, I think the appropriate thing to do is to write the epilogue. A few key points:
Once again, premature submission.
The epilogue closes, of course, with Milo going to jail for breaking NDA, violating copyright, patent, and trade secret laws.
If they did make a movie about a hacker (the advogato type, not the stereotyped media hacker), just how interesting would it be?
Scene 1: Hacker in front of pretty screen showing GNOME desktop. Hacker
is reading /.
/. headline reads "Company steals GPL code"
Hacker types nasty comment about how thats the last time he's using
anything by that company.
Hacker loads Gnapster to get some mp3s while he reads all the other
comments that say the same as his. (Execpt for obligitory first
post/penis bird/natalie portman comments...)
Hacker dreams of Natalie Portman naked and pertrified (see, we can get
Natalie Portman for this movie).
Hacker listens to MP3s
Loads IRC client and Emacs
Spends rest of movie hacking.
Audience leaves after Natalie Portman naked because quite frankly, the
rest of it is dull as hell.
Arg! Hackers was never suppose to be a computer film. It was suppose to be an art film that happen to include hackers with which to set a backdrop for their graphics artists and costume designers to flaunt their skill. Die Hart (first one) and Jurasic Park (again, first one) were more of a computer movie than Hackers is.
Come on. A lot of what's above this is just plain silly.
gtaylor: The power of the individual is even asserted with regard to
programming skill: apparently Milo's programming capabilities are such
that all of NURV cannot meet a deadline in three weeks without him. From
Brooks to DeMarco and Lister, we know that this is absurd...
He's a hero. If he couldn't do something absurd, he wouldn't be one.
So all this nitpicking aside, this movie is remarkably useless as an
example of anything to do with free software. It's really quite a
bummer.
Well, what did you expect? I went into this movie expecting something
the reality level of hackers, and I came out very impressed with
(one of?) the first wide-spread mention of Open Source, as well as the
technical accuracy of REAL computer usage.
I do agree with your statements about how the community wasn't
represented, but in general, no one non-technical was probably watching
this movie from yours or mine perspective, so I don't think it hurt
anything.
joey: I was even rather dissappointed with the use of said free desktop
environment. All that says to me is, we have succeeded in producing
window managers and GUI's that are acceptable hollywood fodder. Is this
a positive accomplishement?
It's certainly not negative, and some would argue that it is a positive
achievement. I detect a hint of elitism in your message..
I see X every day; I don't need to go to the movies to do so.
Well, you also see cars every day, and there are cars in movies. This
message was just silly.
Iain: I don't think all geeks think about Natalie Portman. ;)
Anyway, in conclusion, I think everyone's taking this way too seriously.
The movie in most cases probably didn't cause any negative reaction to
Open Source, or even Free Software. Oh, and I also apologize for my
overuse of the word "silly". :)
I know someone who is more than 100 times as productive as the average programmer. We know this because he worked in a corporate division with 500 other programmers, and at the end of a year half the code was his. Any time somebody was late with their part, he just did it himself.
He knows someone he considers an awesome programmer, who he guesses is ten times more productive. This last guy wears out two keyboards per year.
No, you can't hire either of them. They're Swedes, not that that has anything to do with it.
Thus, the idea of one guy saving the company is not so far-fetched.
New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.
Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.
If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!
del.icio.us
Digg
Google bookmark
reddit
Simpy
StumbleUpon
Furl
Newsvine
Technorati
Tailrank