Already happening
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| sbergman27 Apr 29, 2005 2:26 PM EDT |
> In general, I agree with Pia that in a better world, it would be nice to have the newcomers understand the communitarian and philosophical aspects of open source. However, realistically and practically, I don't think it's going to happen. Sure, some ideas and ethos will rub off and many of the broader philosophical aspects underpinning open source, such as freedom, openness and interoperability, will certainly impact the future of the creative arts and sciences. But few of the new users will understand these motivations and machinations of the culture. This isn't as bad as it sounds however. ----------------- This is already happening. The group at Spreadfirefox.org is doing a great job of promoting the browser. They are very enthusiastic. Firefox rocks! and all that. Rah! Rah! Rah! But when the time came to release the "NY Times Ad" in pdf format to those who had contributed to it, they used non FOSS software and the ad was not viewable in *any* FOSS pdf viewer. When I commented (ok, complained) about this on the site, I was told to "get a life". (Yes, really in those words.) You see, Firefox Rocks! It's a cool browser. Everyone should use it. But that freedom stuff is just stupid. |
| Libervis Apr 29, 2005 4:06 PM EDT |
Well, i for one wont accept that as is. I wont accept what is here being painted as a fact that people really wont understand much of the freedom issue because by doing so i'm becoming part of the cause for which they wont. Sorry guys, but this "open source" philosophy is incompatible with its own roots. It spreads software that is free along with the philosophy which says that despite free software being better, unfree software is as much "OK" as well. "Open source" was built on free software movement and what it has essentially done is not popularisation of free software use as most people think, but masking what really makes free software so good, yes, technically good - the ideal of freedom. By rejecting the ideal of freedom as a paramount issue they reject the very basis of their pragmatic belief (that free software is superior), thus leaving themselves foundationless, building a house on sand. If there was no "open source" it is not true that popularisation wouldn't happen anyway. RedHat existed before open source and it was a business, there were various other companies flourishing without open source initiative trumpeting that free software indeed is good for business (as it's not essentially free of cost). If there was no "open source", free software community will be much better of spreading the awareness of what actually makes free software so good - freedom! It is still possible, hard but possible, to teach people of freedom. We should not listen to messages like this, saying that we just *can't* get people to see the "ethos" of the community and rejoice because there.. it becomes mainstream. I like firefox, but i don't like flash, java or realplayer integration. I like OpenOffice.org, but i don't like it being dependant on unfree java. I like free software because it is better and i like the fact that it is better exactly because it was developed in and for freedom. The ideal of freedom, not the ideal of supremacy, was the keypoint that led GNU/Linux and free software where it is today. If it was only the ideal of supremacy, then all software today would be unfree. "Open source" pragmatists i say this: you are digging under your own feets by not accepting the fact that true pragmatist is the one who cares for freedom. Not caring for freedom is being both anti-practical and anti-social as well as anti-ethical. Thank you Daniel |
| AnonymousCoward Apr 30, 2005 2:40 AM EDT |
One LWN poster put it this way: all we have to do to crash the Linux revolution is listen to the people who have not been contributing. As long as we keep doing what we've been doing, we'll get what we've been getting: a revolution. It won't be perfect from Day One, but it will be overwhelming and irreversible. Bill Gates, if you're reading this: trying to abort the FOSS revolution would be like trying to divert or block the wave that cut Cathedral Rocks, NSW in essentially one swipe. If you try, you will be mown down. That's not a threat, that's an observation. Call it a prophecy, if you like. You can't stop this wave, but you can ride it. Start by making MS Office more accessible and porting it to Linux; no patents or other encumbrances. If you can do that, MS Office might survive outright destruction at the hand of OpenOffice and its fellows. If you don't, then MS-Office will be torn out and thrown away in favour of one of the truly open suites (in order to gain benefits which Microsoft today can't offer). Longhorn is too little, too late, and oversold as usual. MS Windows is going to die; slowly, but nevertheless die - you've killed it by being too greedy. Write it off. Your flagship database server is also being commoditised to death, there is bugger-all left which MS SQL Server does and multiple FOSS databases don't, and they're getting better, faster. MS Exchange is suffering the same fate: dead at the hands of OpenGroupware and friends, but not yet lying down. Expect OGW and at least three competitors to out-point MS Exchange in detail and across the board by December. And so on down your product range. The IT culture of lock-in-and-extort has passed on. It is an ex-paradigm, and would have fallen off its perch if you hadn't nailed it there. The only way to salvage anything is to change Microsoft's culture. SGI's doing it. Novell's doing it. IBM's doing it. Sun's doing it. Hewlett Paquard's doing it. It's working for them, it can work for you. |
| dinotrac Apr 30, 2005 3:54 AM EDT |
Oh gosh. Sounds Johnnie-come-latelies on the stump. Not to say anything, but ... how many people are actually "contributing"...whatever that means? The very statement "start listening to people who haven't been listening" is absurd. Here's a clue for you: Coding is only one part of the job. If you are listening to people, that means they are talking to you. That's called feedback. Feedback is a contribution. It's a better and more valuable contribution than 90% of the code that's been written. |
| Libervis Apr 30, 2005 11:25 AM EDT |
Agreed.. there are various ways one can contribute and it's not just code. Most of what anonymous user said however makes sense. It is true that the old ways are increasingly becoming obsolete. If one would say to himself that keeping it proprietary, locked in, patented or whatever is better, more efficient and in the end good for you, you are saying an outright lie to yourself. Keeping it open, cooperating and sharing is the way things were done since the planet Earth existed... only in the last century some smartass bastards "inveted" this "bautiful" system of "intellectual property" - shsh what a bubble! They saw internet as a threat and thus want to "protect" their property! Guys, you better wash your eyes and ears - internet is not out to kill you and your rights - it is out to change the lives of all of us, including yours, if you'd just shut the hell up and listen. Forget patents, forget copyright on ALL creativity... Long live copyleft, balanced rights and above all freedom! Thank you maDaniel |
| dinotrac Apr 30, 2005 1:42 PM EDT |
>Forget patents, forget copyright on ALL creativity... Long live copyleft, balanced rights and above all freedom! Remembering, of course, that copyleft is completely dependent on copyright to work... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!