Lunduke
News • Science & Tech
The True History of vi (and vim)
How a broken pascal compiler, a 300 baud modem, and a 1970s terminal helped create the (in)famous text editor.
August 08, 2023
post photo preview

Earlier this week (August 3rd, 2023), Bram Moolenaar, creator and long-time maintainer of Vim passed away.  The following article -- originally published earlier this year -- has been updated to include a brief history of Vim.


Everyone who has spent any time with UNIX or Linux knows about vi — the ubiquitous text editor that seems to have existed since the dawn of time itself.

Likewise, there are better than even odds that the first time you ran vi (or vim, which is based on vi)… you got stuck and couldn’t figure out how to exit the gosh-darned program.

Don’t feel ashamed. It’s a right of passage.

Your first experience with vi / vim looked something like this. You know it’s true.

What follows is the story of that much loved — and much hated — text editor. Where it came from, who created it, how it was almost very different, and why on earth it is the way it is.

It all started with ed

As with so many stories in computer history, the tale of vi begins long before vi, itself, ever comes into existence.

Our story begins in August of 1969, at AT&T Bell Labs.

There, Ken Thompson was beginning work on what would become UNIX. At that time it was a barebones system, running on a PDP-7, consisting of only three little components: an assembler, a shell… and a simple text editor known as “ed”.

Ed, which is (obviously) short for “editor”, is a line-mode text editor — meaning you edit one line of text at a time. A process which can drive any person to the brink of madness.

Being a line editor, ed doesn’t look like much. So here’s a screenshot of the ed manpage.

Historical Side Note: The design of ed was inspired by QED (which is short for “Quick EDitor"“) — a similar line-mode text editor created for the Berkeley Time Sharing System in the mid-1960s — and was re-written for MULTICS (the precursor to UNIX) by Ken Thompson. So it seems natural that, when Thompson needed a basic text editor for UNIX… he would base it on the design of QED, which he was already so familiar with.

Ed quickly became the defacto line-mode text editor for UNIX — remaining a part of the POSIX standard to this very day.

A wild Pascal appears

A few years later, in 1975, Ken Thompson went to Berkeley (the University of California) and built a Pascal compiler for UNIX.

There, his Pascal compiler came to the attention of a student at UC Berkeley… Bill Joy. The man who would go on to create vi.

From Bill Joy’s 1999 interview with Linux Magazine:

“What happened is that Ken Thompson came to Berkeley and brought this broken Pascal system, and we got this summer job to fix it. While we were fixing it, we got frustrated with the editor we were using which was named ed. ed is certainly frustrating.”

As with so many stories in the advancement of software… work begins when a programmer gets frustrated with existing software.

“We got this code from a guy named George Coulouris at University College in London called em - Editor for Mortals - since only immortals could use ed to do anything. By the way, before that summer, we could only type in uppercase. That summer we got lowercase ROMs for our terminals. It was really exciting to finally use lowercase.”

Anyone who has used ed for any sizable project knows how frustrating it can be to use. While ed has many strengths (and is great for usage via shell scripts) editing large portions of text is not one of them.

Now, with inspiration from the “em” text editor, things really kicked into gear.

From the August 1984 issue of UNIX Review:

“So Chuck (Haley) and I looked at that and we hacked on em for a while, and eventually we ripped the stuff out of em and put some of it into what was then called en, which was really ed with some em features. Chuck would come in at night - we really didn't work exactly the same hours although we overlapped in the afternoon. I'd break the editor and he'd fix it and then he'd break it and I'd fix it. I got really big into writing manual pages, so I wrote manual pages for all the great features we were going to do but never implemented.”

Put simply… ed + em = en. Sort of.

Also, I love the whole “I wrote manual pages for all the great features we were going to do but never implemented” part. Been there!

Modems and Terminals and vi weirdness

Back to the 1999 Linux Magazine interview:

I don't know if there was an eo or an ep but finally there was ex. [laughter] I remember en but I don't know how it got to ex. So I had a terminal at home and a 300 baud modem so the cursor could move around and I just stayed up all night for a few months and wrote vi.”

ed… em… en… [eo… ep?]… ex… then, finally, vi.

That is how we got to vi. The family tree of vi, if you will.

Worth noting here that “vi” is short for “visual mode of ex”. Running “vi” is literally a shortcut for launching the “ex” text editor directly into the full screen “visual mode” instead of the default “line mode”

In fact, if you were already running ex, you could enter the “visual mode” by entering the vi command.

And, what’s that? Vi was programmed on a 300 baud modem?

Seriously. Considering a 300 baud modem is 1/4th the speed of a 1200 baud modem (which transmits text slower than most people can read it)… this explains much of the design of vi.

“It was really hard to do because you've got to remember that I was trying to make it usable over a 300 baud modem. That's also the reason you have all these funny commands. It just barely worked to use a screen editor over a modem. It was just barely fast enough.”

Here, Bill Joy compares the reasons behind the design differences between emacs and vi:

“The people doing Emacs were sitting in labs at MIT with what were essentially fibre-channel links to the host, in contemporary terms. They were working on a PDP-10, which was a huge machine by comparison, with infinitely fast screens.

So they could have funny commands with the screen shimmering and all that, and meanwhile, I'm sitting at home in sort of World War II surplus housing at Berkeley with a modem and a terminal that can just barely get the cursor off the bottom line.

It was a world that is now extinct. People don't know that vi was written for a world that doesn't exist anymore.

Short, single character commands in vi kept things usable even of that slow connection.

As Bill Joy put it, “vi was written for a world that doesn't exist anymore.”

While the hardware limitation of the 300 baud modem had a significant influence on the design of vi… arguably the terminal (and keyboard) being used by Bill Joy had an even bigger impact.

That terminal: the ADM-3A built by Lear Siegler.

The ADM-3A is the model of terminal that Bill Joy programmed ex visual mode (aka vi) on.

For example: Why does vi use H, J, K, and L for cursor movement? Because, on the ADM-3A, those keys doubled as the arrow keys.

The keyboard layout of the ADM-3A.

You’ll also note that the Escape key is where the Tab key is on most modern keyboard. That’s why Esc is the vi mode switching key… it was, on that keyboard, easy to hit without moving your left hand off of the home row.

And, despite common keyboard layouts no longer being like this, vi stayed this way.

Vi almost changed significantly

A fun little sidenote: Bill Joy almost added multi-window support and other features… but he didn’t have backups of his code. And, as is the way, he lost that code.

“I was in the process of adding multiwindows to vi when we installed our VAX, which would have been in December of '78. We didn't have any backups and the tape drive broke. I continued to work even without being able to do backups. And then the source code got scrunched and I didn't have a complete listing. I had almost rewritten all of the display code for windows, and that was when I gave up. After that, I went back to the previous version and just documented the code, finished the manual and closed it off. If that scrunch had not happened, vi would have multiple windows, and I might have put in some programmability - but I don't know.”

Yep. We were this close to vi being quite different in those early days.

But the source code got “scrunched”.

Which is a technical term. I think.

Vi… forever

In May of 1979, Bill Joy — who was also the driving force behind BSD — released the first public version of vi (the visual mode for the ex text editor) as part of the 2nd release of the Berkeley Software Distribution (2BSD).

While, at this point, BSD was not yet a full operating system — it was an archive of a few pieces of software for UNIX — this was the launching pad for what would become one of the most famous (and infamous) text editors ever created.

While vi may have initially only been distributed to a mere 75 people (as part of the 2BSD archive)… it would go on to become a standard of POSIX, distributed on nearly every UNIX-alike system for the last 40 years.

More likely than not, people will be struggling to escape from vi another 40 years into the future.

Heck. A million years from now only three things will remain: cockroaches, Hostess Twinkies, and vi.

All because Bill Joy used an ADM-3A terminal on a 300 baud connection to build a text editor to fix a broken Pascal compiler.

Not too darned shabby for a mode of a text editor written for a world that doesn't exist anymore.

The Story of Vim

As popular -- and historically significant -- as vi is... one of vi's clones is, arguably, even more widely used: Vim.  Linux users regularly vote for Vim as their favorite text editor (or, at least, one of their favorites).

The path from vi to Vim wound through Unix, Atari ST, and Amiga systems... and back again.

  • In 1987, a man named Tim Thompson created a vi clone (from scratch, with no code copied from vi) for the Atari ST.  He called it STEVIE (which stands for ST Editor for VI Enthusiasts.)
  • In 1988, STEVIE was ported to OS/2, Amiga, and UNIX by Tony Andrews.
  • Later in 1988, Bram Moolenaar took the source code for the Amiga port of STEVIE and began modifying it to meet his own needs.  The result was Vim (or "Vi IMitation").  Because it wasn't a fork or port of Vi... but an imitation.
  • Moolenaar would continue to work on Vim for the next few years, eventually making the first public release in 1991.

Eventually (in 1993), the "Vi IMitiation" name was changed to "Vi IMproved"... and Vim was ported to an incredible number of platforms -- from UNIX to DOS to Haiku.

And it still uses those same, crazy, vi default keys... inspired by the ADM-3A.

community logo
Join the Lunduke Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
17
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Open Source AI Definition: Not Open, Built by DEI, Funded by Big Tech

Run by an "Anti-Racist, Decolonizing" Activist, the new Open Source Definition is anything but Open.

The article:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5917220/open-source-ai-definition-not-open-built-by-dei-funded-by-big-tech

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:18:35
GNOME bans Manjaro Core Team Member for uttering "Lunduke"

The GNOME team has censored -- and deleted the account -- of the maintainer of Manjaro Linux GNOME Edition. Why? Because he linked to a Lunduke article.

GNOME bans Manjaro Core Team Member for uttering "Lunduke":
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5908516/gnome-bans-manjaro-core-team-member-for-uttering-lunduke

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:17:16
GNOME Ousts Elected Board Member in Secret, Tells Nobody for 2 Months

Secret meetings. No transparency. Total chaos at the GNOME Foundation as they remove Sonny Piers, one of their Board Members, without telling anyone. This all happens right as the GNOME Executive Director quits, GNOME announces dire financial circumstances, and a disastrous "5 year plan" focusing on DEI.

The article:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5899324/gnome-ousts-elected-board-member-in-secret-and-tells-nobody-for-2-months

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:37:30
November 22, 2023
The futility of Ad-Blockers

Ads are filling the entirety of the Web -- websites, podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. -- at an increasing rate. Prices for those ad placements are plummeting. Consumers are desperate to use ad-blockers to make the web palatable. Google (and others) are desperate to break and block ad-blockers. All of which results in... more ads and lower pay for creators.

It's a fascinatingly annoying cycle. And there's only one viable way out of it.

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links? Check here:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

The futility of Ad-Blockers
November 21, 2023
openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"

Those in power with openSUSE make it clear they will not allow me anywhere near anything related to the openSUSE project. Ever. For any reason.

Well, that settles that, then! Guess I won't be contributing to openSUSE! 🤣

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links?
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"
September 13, 2023
"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

This episode is free for all to enjoy and share.

Be sure to subscribe here at Lunduke.Locals.com to get all shows & articles (including interviews with other amazing nerds).

"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

Heads up:

The Lunduke Computer Operating System forum is getting some structure... and, for those of you looking to get involved, posts are starting to go up discussing specific areas available for contribution.

https://lcosforum.lunduke.com/

"source" (Linux Command) 👨‍🏫 I know it from a "User Level Red Hat" Course that I took in Community College (Tech School).

Yes, yes, yes: cp, copy, midnight commander, whatever. But I'm curious; if you're using a GUI file manager...

post photo preview
Editor of OSNews calls for the murder of a Conservative, Jewish Tech Journalist
Leftist Extremist OSNews says Lunduke is "Nazi" who must "die".

The Editor of OSNews.com has declared that I, Lunduke, am a member of the Nazi party -- and encourages others to murder me.

I repeat: A Tech Journalist has stated -- as a matter of fact -- that a proud Jewish man is a Nazi that must be killed.

Absolutely insane.

On Friday, July 26th, the Editor of OSNews.com (Thom Holwerda), posted the following to his Mastodon account:

"Hey linuxrocks.online, you have a nazi infestation. Considering your instance seems to use only approved registrations, this surely raises about a million red flags."

 

Source: Mastodon

 

What was the "Nazi infestation" he speaks of?  He includes a screenshot of The Lunduke Journal account to make it clear who he was refering to.

While this is already absolutely insane (no sane person would call a proud Jewish man a member of the Nazi party)... it gets far, far worse.

A few hours later, the OSNews.com Editor followed up with the following statement:

"Since the instance linuxrocks.online is openly, knowingly, and willingly hosting nazis, I'm going to block the whole instance. If you're a follower on said nazi instance, I suggest you reconsider your choice of instance.

 

No quarter for nazis. The only good nazi is a dead nazi."

 

Source: Mastodon

 

"No quarter for nazis. The only good nazi is a dead nazi."

Am I a Nazi?  Obviously not.  But, that Tech Journalist says that I am a Nazi.  And I must be killed.

Which means, according to the Editor of OSNews, "The only good [Lunduke] is a dead [Lunduke]."

Is it libel?  Without question.  Is this a clear threat of violence?  Absolutely.

He also appears to be stating that anyone who simply exists on the same server as me is, by proximity, also a Nazi.  And they must also be murdered.

Few Will Condemn This

I wish I could say this was a completely isolated incident.

The sad fact is, a number of Tech Journalists share the extreme, Leftist, disturbed, violent views of the Editor of OSNews.  They believe that many groups (including both Conservatives and Jews) are evil "Nazis" who must be murdered.

And, while many other Tech Journalists do not agree with those warped, twisted ideas... few, if any, will speak out against those calls for violence and death.

All Hope Is Not Lost

In those vile messages quoted above, the Editor of OSNews was clearly attempting to bully the administrator of a specific server -- whose only crime was allowing me to exist.

How did that server's administrator respond?  In an incredibly reasonable way:

"We do not appreciate name-calling here. Would you like to present your evidence that a user needs to be removed rather than going straight to name-calling."

 

Source: Mastodon

 

No name-calling.  Present evidence if you have a concern.

Reasonable.  Calm.  Practical.

Seeing that sort of response gave me just a little extra hope for the future of the Open Source and general computer industries.  If we can get more brave, reasonable, thoughtful people -- like that server administrator -- speaking against the hate and violence of people like the Editor of OSNews... we might just stand a chance.

(Of course, no response given -- by the OSNews Editor -- to this reasonable request.)

A Related Thought From Lunduke

Let's pause, and take a step back.  I'd like to talk, for just a moment, about politically charged discussions (like this one) within the broader Tech World... and on The Lunduke Journal specifically.

When I first started The Lunduke Journal, I focused entirely on the technical aspects of computing.  "Stay clear of politics, Lunduke," I told myself.  "Stick to the happy tech stuff!"

And, by and large, I managed to stay true to that for many years (with no more than a passing, momentary blip into politically charged topics once in a blue moon).

But, here we stand.

At a time when people are being banned from Open Source projects solely because of their political leanings (often leading to the complete destruction of those projects).  When entire Open Source organizations and concepts are being re-shaped -- into something not-at-all "Open" -- by political activists.  When Big Tech corporations are regularly discriminating against people based on the color of their skin or their sex.

And when, like we saw today, a Tech Journalist declares that Conservative Jewish Nerds (and the people who exist near them) are "Nazis" who need to be murdered.

Staying quiet on these issues is simply not an option.

Not for The Lunduke Journal.  And not for any other Tech Journalist worth a damn.

It is well past time to speak out against this insanity.  If you are a Tech Journalist (in whatever form... articles, podcasts, videos), shine a light on these stories.  Show people the damage that is being done to the world of computing by these political extremists.

The Lunduke Journal can't do this all alone.  But if I have to do it on my own... I will.

Because I love computing.  I love the history of it, the technical aspects, the future... all of it.  And computing is worth saving.

So, I will keep covering all of it.  Even if these extremists keep threatening to kill me.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Funny Programming Pictures Part XLIX
Mogwai & Michael J Fox Edition

Not all of these pictures are about programming and computers.  Some are about Mogwai and Michael J Fox.   Just felt right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
Open Source AI Definition: Not Open, Built by DEI, Funded by Big Tech
Run by an "Anti-Racist, Decolonizing" Activist, the new Open Source Definition is anything but Open

The Open Source Initiative is preparing to finalize what they call "The Open Source Aritificial Intelligence Definition" -- a set of rules which A.I. systems must adhere to in order to be considered, officially, "Open Source".

And everything about it is truly peculiar.

From the fact that it considers "No Data" to be "Open Data" (yeah, try to wrap your brain around that little nugget) to the corporate sponsorship (from corporations in the "Closed Source A.I." business)... to the "anti-racist, decolonizing" consultant they hired to put the whole thing together.

Yeah.  "Decolonizing".  The whole thing is just plain weird.

A Little Background

The Open Source Initiative's cliam to fame is that they are the steward of what is known as the "Open Source Definition" (aka "the OSD").  A set of rules which any software license must adhere to in order to be considred, officially, "Open Source".

The "OSD" began life back in 1997 as the "Debian Free Software Guidelines", written by Bruce Perens.  Later, with the help of Eric Raymond, that document morphed into the "Open Source Definition"... at which point the two men created the "Open Source Initiative" to act as a certification body for the OSD.

Fun Historical Tidbit: The Open Source Initiative likes to tell a long-debunked story about the creation of the term "Open Source" which they know is historically incorrect.  That little tidbit isn't critical to what we're talking about today... but it's just plain weird, right?

Flash forward to today, and both of the founders -- Perens and Raymond -- have been forced out or banned from the Open Source Initiative entirely.  Now the organization, free from the influence of the founders, is looking to expand into the newly exciting field of "Artificial Intelligence".

Thus: The creation of "The Open Source A.I. Definition"... or the OSAID.

The Anti-Racist Leadership

To create this new "OSAID", the Open Source Initiative hired Mer Joyce from the consulting agency known as "Do Big Good".

 

Mer Joyce: Process Facilitator for the Open Source AI Definition

 

Why, specifically, was Mer Joyce hired to lead the effort to create a brand new "Open Source" definition, specifically focused on Artificial Intelligence?

  • Was it her extensive background in Open Source?
  • Or her expertise in A.I. related topics?
  • Perhaps it was simply her many years of work in software, in general?

Nope.  It was none of those things.  Because, in fact, Mer Joyce appears to have approximately zero experience in any of those areas.

In fact, the stated reason that Mer Joyce was chosen to create this Open Source definition is, and I quote:

 

"[Mer Joyce] has worked for over a decade at the intersection of research, policy, innovation and social change."

 

Her work experience appears to be mostly focused on Leftist political activism and working on Democrat political campaigns.

As for the consulting agancy, Do Big Good, their focus appears to be equally... non-technical.  With a focus on "creating an equitable and sustainable world" and "inclusion".

 

The "Values" of "Do Big Good".

 

When "Do Big Good" talks about what skils and expertise they bring to a project, they mention things such as:

  • Center marginalized and excluded voices.
  • Embody anti-racist, feminist, and decolonizing values.
  • Practice Cultural humility.

 

How "Do Big Good" works.

 

Note: Yes.  They wrote "decolonalizing".  Which is not a real word.  We're going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant "decolonizing".  Spelling errors happen.

Now, how does "Embodying decolonizing values" help to draft a definition of Open Source Artificial Intelligence licensing?

No clue.  But, apparently, "decolonizing" and being "anti-racist" is important to the Open Source Definition and software licensing.

You'll note that the only software-related skill this "Do Big Good" company appears to have is that they can "work virtually or in-person".  In other words: They know how to use Zoom.

In fact, this consulting firm only gives three examples of client projects they've worked on.  And the other two are non-technical policy documents for the government of Washington State.

 

The other work of "Do Big Good".

 

Why this agency, and this individual, was hired to lead the work on the OSAID is beyond baffling.  Just the same, this appears to be part of a larger pattern within Open Source and Big Tech: Hiring non-technical, political activist types to lead highly technical projects.  It doesn't usually go well.

The Diverse Working Groups

Considering that the leadership hired to oversee the OSAID's creation is extremely non-technical --  and almost 100% focused on "anti-racist" and "decolonizing" activism -- it's no surprise that one of the first steps taken was to create "working groups" based entirely on skin color and gender identity.

 

"The next step was the formation of four working groups to initially analyze four different AI systems and their components. To achieve better representation, special attention was given to diversity, equity and inclusion. Over 50% of the working group participants are people of color, 30% are black, 75% were born outside the US, and 25% are women, trans or nonbinary."

 

What does having "25% of the people being Trans or nonbinary" have to do with creating a rule-set for software licensing?

Your guess is as good as mine.

But, from the very start of the OSAID's drafting, the focus was not on "creating the best Open Source AI Definition possible"... it was on, and I quote, "diversity, equity and inclusion".

The best and brightest?  Not important.  Meritocracy?  Thrown out the window.

Implement highly racist "skin color quotas" in the name of "DEI"?  You bet!  Lots of that!

"No Data" = "Open Data"

With that in mind, perhaps it is no surprise that the OSAID is turning out... rather bizarre.

Case in point: The OSAID declares that the complete absence of the data used to train an A.I. system... does, in fact, qualify as "Open".  No data... is considered... open data.

If that sounds a bit weird to you, you're not alone.

Let's back up for a moment to give a higher level understanding of the components of an A.I. system:

  1. The Source Code
  2. The Training Data
  3. The Model Parameters

If you have access to all three of those items, you can re-create an A.I. system.

Now, we already have the OSD (the Open Source Definition) which covers the source code part.  Which means the whole purpose of having the OSAID (the Open Source AI Definition) is to cover the other two components: The Training Data and the Model Parameters.

Without an exact copy of the Training Data used in an A.I. system, it becomes impossible to re-create that A.I. system.  It's simply how the current generation of A.I. works.

However, the OSAID does not require that the Training Data be made available at all.  The definition simply requires that:

 

"Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data."

 

At first that sounds pretty reasonable... until you really think about what it means.

This means that an A.I. system would be considered "Open Source A.I." even if it provided zero data used to train it -- it simply must be possible for someone to use the closed, proprietary data... if they should happen to obtain it.

That's like saying "My software is open source.  But I'm not going to let you have the source code.  But, if you did get the source code -- like through espionage or something -- you'd be able to use it.  Which means it's open source.  But you can't distribute or modify that source.  Because it's mine."

Now, an argument could be made that the source code for an AI system could be open even if the data is all closed... and, therefor, it would be "Open Source" under the old OSD.  Which is absolutely true.  But, in that case, why have an "OSAID" at all?  Why not simply keep the existing OSD and focus on that?

Well... I think we have a simple answer to why this OSAID is so utterly strange...

The Corporate Sponsors

The Open Source Initiative is not a huge foundation, especially when compared to some.  But it's revenue is not insignificant.  And it's growing.

In 2023, the Open Source Initiative brought in a revenue of $786,000 -- up roughly $200,000 from the year prior.

 

Source: Open Source Initaitive 2023 Annual Report

 

And who sponsors the Open Source Initiative?

Google.  Amazon.  Meta.  Microsoft (and GitHub).  Red Hat.  And many other corporations. 

 

A Sampling of the Open Source Initiative Sponsors.

 

 

Many of these companies have some noteworthy things in common:

  • They are in the A.I. business in some way.
  • They make use of "Open Source" in their A.I. products.
  • They use "Open Source" as a promotional and public relations tool.
  • They, in one way or another, work with a closed, proprietary set of A.I. training data.
  • They have significant "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" efforts.

When you add that all together, this "Open Source AI Definition" begins to make a lot more sense.

It is, in short:

An effort to create a "Certification" which will declare all of their A.I. systems (no matter how closed their data is) as "Open Source"... while simultaneously being run by a DEI activist organization with a focus on racial and gender identity quotas.

It checks a whole lot of check boxes.  All at once.

What Impact Will This Have?

While many may argue that this "OSAID" is simply irrelevant -- and can be ignored by the broader "Free and Open Source Software" industry -- that misses a key impact that is worth noting.

That being: The continued corruption of both the ideas and the organizations of Open Source.

Not only has the Open Source Initiative banned their founding members (and re-written their own history)... they are now seeking to create a new "Open Source Definition" which will allow for systems consisting primarily of closed, proprietary data to be considered "Open Source".  Thus making their Big Tech financiers happy.

The meaning of the term "Open Source" is being actively modified to mean "A little open, and a lot closed".  And many of the same corproations which are funding this effort are also funding things like... The Linux Foundation.

Which means this corruption and dilution of the concept of "Open Source" is likely to spread far beyond the reaches of one, small (but growing) licensing certification foundation.

Also, apparently, decolonizing values... or something.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals