How is the Cathedral and the Bazaar "self-glorifying romaticism?" If anything, I would describe it as self-deprecating.

Yes, the gratuitous vilification of the open source and free culture proponents on this site is just plain silly. So the big corporate sponsors of this site don't like open source or free culture. So they've hired some people to but their point out. fine.

But to constantly spout these little opinionated barbs, especially when it does nothing to add to the point being made, comes across as just plain childish.

Well, since I've pointed out in other posts about the strengths of open source (for example, the ability of open source project to subsume the work of their critics, I'll take this time to point to another of open source strengths: the fact that it is a very 'big-tent.' One only has to read the post on groklaw to realize that there exist many varieties of open source advocates, and the run the political economic and social spectrum.

The frequent post on this site, where those who apparently advocate some kind of corpo-fascist control over all IP, which gleefully announce some disagreement between different open source proponents are actually proving the strength of the open source movement: despite all the disagreements, the free culture and open source movement retains a critical forward momentum and gathers adherents daily.

Enigma, you constantly astound me.

Opposition to open source software, at least for me, is aimed not at the business, hobby or technological aspects, but at the "revolutionary movement" approach taken by Benkler, Moglen and Stallman. Evidence of their influence can be found in situations like LinuxWorld, where even Raymond finds that open source ideology has gotten out of hand and threatens the future commercial viability of open source, yet faces opposition from open source perspectives that cannot grasp that possibility without self-imposed distortion. I write of this elsewhere too:
http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/06/debate_on_the_t.html
http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/08/bad_open_source.html
http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/08/ibm_to_sun_kith.html

My other objection to open source stems from it seemingly all-encompassing nature. Everything is considered supportive of "open source" if its free, involves peer review, is done for non-monetary reasons, distributed innovating activity, is merit based, etc etc. In actuality, open source is neither as glamorous nor "revolutionary" as portrayed. I recently wrote a blog on how factors commonly cited as signifying open source are aspects of the modern industry than open source gurus can only hope to take credit for. Here: http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/08/open_innovation.html

Noel, and if they fail to accept these things, the BSD developers will not. Nor for that matter, do I think that the developers of HaikuOS would have any problems with binary-only drivers and things like that since their goal is an open source clone of BeOS, not some revolution.