Free Software in the movies
Posted 14 Jan 2001 at 18:35 UTC by gtaylor
...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?
RMS vs ESR
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:
- If NURV wanted to steal source from a free software project, they
simply would; free software is, after all, pretty easy to find
the source for. There are any number of ways to track free
software project work more effectively than over-the-shoulder
cameras and a network of humans monitoring.
- Broadcasting the NURV source to the world is somewhat dubious
viewed from any angle: stolen free source would in fact
already be available to anyone from the original authors, and the
in-house NURV code would in fact be copyrighted original NURV
work (all those programmers in the cement-and-surfboard room must
have written something). So really, per the combined
licenses it would be improper for anyone to use the resulting
combined work (excepting, I suppose, for in-house NURV purposes).
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?
agreed, posted 15 Jan 2001 at 00:42 UTC by joey »
(Master)
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.
X, posted 15 Jan 2001 at 18:03 UTC by lkcl »
(Master)
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"
Good grief, posted 15 Jan 2001 at 19:13 UTC by crackmonkey »
(Master)
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:
- We all know that the SAMBA team performs strict taint-checking
against those who may have seen Windows source code. Likely some other
media-centric project would have to issue a press release and general
Free Software APB warning programmers NOT TO USE THIS CODE OR EVEN READ IT.
- A media SNAFU explodes, tempest in a teapot, that the Open Source
people are STEALING CODE and BROADCASTING IT WORLDWIDE. The big
McLaughlin group talking-heads coffee klatches are consumed with
intellectual property issues and discussions of the NDA that Milo was
admittedly under.
Once again, premature submission.
The epilogue closes, of course, with Milo going to jail for breaking
NDA, violating copyright, patent, and trade secret laws.
Come on though, posted 15 Jan 2001 at 23:38 UTC by Iain »
(Master)
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.
<i>Hackers</i>, posted 16 Jan 2001 at 00:21 UTC by jmg »
(Master)
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.
This is silly., posted 16 Jan 2001 at 02:23 UTC by carmstro »
(Journeyer)
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.