Not sure what to think!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Abe Oct 16, 2005 7:03 AM EDT |
Note: I didn't need to register to read this artcile. It is a very good interesting read. Very insightful and well written article. The summary is that, no matter what the objects or aims are, Freedom will always win. Yes, there are similarities between the two groups, but these similarities stop at the methods that are vastly different. The Iraq's insurgency is fighting for their own freedom, whether this is good and beneficial for the whole Iraqi people or not, that does not matter, they believe they are fighting for their own freedom, which was robbed away from by the invasion. Now we know that the invasion was for all the wrong reasons. They are even fighting the Shiites and the Kurds because the insurgents assume that they the Shiites will take away their Freedom and rights. Open Source are fighting for software Freedom, whether that is good for everyone or not that does not make a difference. But, what we, the Open Source Movement, believe and know for sure is that, it will be better for most of us users and many of the companies that were disenfranchise for a long time now by the monopolistic powerful control of MS. |
| tuxchick Oct 16, 2005 11:22 AM EDT |
Interesting editorial. Comparing open source development methodology to war- even a retarded, ridiculous, pointless war like Iraq- is a bit of a stretch. FOSS is a grass-roots movement, not a resistance. Microsoft isn't an invader- Gates is a typical robber baron, no different than Jay Gould, JP Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, and so forth. (Michael Milken almost made it, but his robber baron career was derailed by a stretch in the slammer.) And just like the others, after a long successful career of bullying and abusing customers, distributing shoddy products, buying influence, spewing forth tides of self-serving baloney, and getting away with all sorts of anti-competitive practices, he has become a Philanthropist (ooo, now we can love him), and will re-write his own history and spew forth more self-serving baloney. Where Gates is unique is even his philanthropy is self-serving to a degree that his forebear robber barons never even dreamed of. Everything is a transaction, nothing is given away without carefully calculating the ROI. Drawing an analogy to the Iraq invasion is straining analogy to the breaking point. Microsoft didn't invade anyone. Iraq isn't even a real country. Sometime early in the 20th century the region now known as Iraq was "liberated" from British rule and created out of arbitrarily drawing a line on a map and incorporating three warring nations. Good move, that! Which led directly to the mess it's in today. It is true that a distributed, de-centralized foe is very difficult to fight, and on that point the editorial is correct. Ironically, as far as FOSS vs. Microsoft goes, a war is completely unnecessary. There is plenty of room for everyone. But Microsoft wants to own it all, and I believe their rigid protection of the Windows/Office franchises has already hurt them, and it's going to get worse. "The summary is that, no matter what the objects or aims are, Freedom will always win." I would like to agree with this, but I'm afraid I can't. Just look at the direction the US taken since the 70s- we keep losing our freedoms, and it's only going to get worse as technology makes it easier to take our liberties away. There is a sizable constituency in the US that does not understand or agree with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and thinks it is OK to allow law enforcement and the government free rein to trample through our lives without cause or due process. I think these folks would be more comfortable with a monarchy instead of a democracy. |
| TxtEdMacs Oct 16, 2005 12:56 PM EDT |
tuxchick - very slight quibble: Quoting:... even his philanthropy is self-serving to a degree that his forebear robber barons never even dreamed of. Everything is a transaction, nothing is given away without carefully calculating the ROI. It just might be possible that some of the contributions for some drug research might not fit that pattern, however, notice my use of the words: "might not"! The one example that comes to my mind is the Malaria drug research where the drug companies had no interest due to the low probable returns either by direct sales or by compensation from "foreign aid funds". I think too there is another example of another third world scourge which met with similar disinterest that the Gates Foundation contributed. Otherwise, I cannot argue against any of the sentiments you expressed since they are so close to my thoughts on recent history. |
| Abe Oct 16, 2005 1:12 PM EDT |
Tuxchick:
You must have missed the statement "a former Air Force counterterrorist operative, I began thinking: how would I build this system and what would I recommend?" It is a war. Wars come in different shapes and forms, there is political wars (remember the cold war?), military wars (many of them), social wars and others. We, as human individuals, tend to put things in perspective we understand best. John Robb is a military person; In his mind, it is a war. FOSS is a human effort open to everyone and for everyone. MS can't accept it because it contradicts its aims and objectives and threatens its existence and survival. It tried all means to stop FOSS but had no luck so they declared their vicious war. The US government did the same with a dictator which it created and supported. When the time this dictator stopped following orders, it was time to get rid of him and military war was the last option left. MS is doing exactly the same. Like I said, both are wars but the methods and means are different. I thing it would be very naive if we think otherwise and we are certainly bound to lose if we do. "Iraq isn't even a real country. Sometime early in the 20th century..." That was a calculated move by the British. The intent was to divide and conquer. They didn't only divide, they also fueled the feud among the various ethnic and religious factions. That, along with 400 years of illetiracy, ignorance, and poverty induced by dictators which the Ottoman and western powers appointed to rule the people caused all that turmoil and chaos in the region. It is a long story but it is all documented history you can read about. "Microsoft didn't invade anyone" Are you saying MS didn't invade our privacy? Their control and lock ins did invade and limit our Freedom? How much freedom should we lose for MS to have enough freedom to totally control our lives? I am surprise at you Tuxchick! I agree with, a war is not necessary, but how the heck are we going to convince MS otherwise. We are offering everything to everyone, but MS is not satisfied and we haven't seen the worst of them. Should we let MS run all over us and dominate us just to avoid a war? I don't think so. "Just look at the direction the US taken since the 70s- we keep losing our freedoms, and it's only going to get worse" Our constitution guarantees our freedom of speech and the right to vote. So, we still have the chance and opportunity to change things. If these rights were to be taken away or if we were to lose them, don't you think people will revolt and start an armed struggle? I thing we will. |
| tuxchick Oct 16, 2005 2:15 PM EDT |
"Our constitution guarantees our freedom of speech and the right to vote. So, we still have the chance and opportunity to change things. If these rights were to be taken away or if we were to lose them, don't you think people will revolt and start an armed struggle? I thing we will." I don't think so. What the Constitution says, and what laws get made are often at odds, and un-Constitutional laws are overturned only when they get challenged. Which is always an uphill battle that takes years. The current Administration has mastered the art of "yes, you may speak as you wish, but you will lose your funding if you say the wrong things." Too many folks have a "yes, but" attitude towards free speech. Yes, we want free speech, but broccoli anti-disparagement laws are OK. Yes, but what about the children- we musn't let anyone talk to them about sex, evolution, drugs, other religions, or anything else their parents don't want them to be exposed to. Yes, but we musn't criticize or question our leadership, 'cause then the terrorists will get us, and only unpatriotic- dare I say, possibly traitorous- people do that. Yes, but you must let a cop do whatever he wants to you. Yes, but we must protect trade secrets, so don't criticize, analye, dissect, or expose flaws in commercial software. Especially "copy protection" schemes, no matter how ludicrously feeble. There has a quiet but strong movement for years now to muzzle speech. The FTC has allowed media consolidation and absentee ownership of newspapers and TV and radio stations to the point that (I think) it's three large congolomerates that control nearly all of it. Which is completely contrary to their charter, which is to maintain independent and local ownership of media outlets. "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." As for the right to vote, well, you've seen the numbers in recent elections. Less than half of eligible voters even bother to register. Even worse, the rush to electronic voting is absolutely appalling- it makes no sense unless you believe that powerful forces are behind implementing untrustworthy voting equipment. Who remembers our very own champion weenie, Scott McNeely, saying his famous "There is no privacy--get over it". You might recall back in those days how he and Ellison at Oracle were wetting their pants over the idea of selling the hardware and software to build giant databases for tracking personal information about anyone and everything. They could have done the right thing, and taken public stands in favor of protecting people's rights, and perhaps developing technology that we could use to our benefit. Instead of racing to sell us out as quickly as possible. You have persuaded me on the invasion issue. My first thought was that comparing software issues to a war where people are suffering and dying was an overreach and in poor taste. But you are right- they are invaders. On a positive note, it could well be that FOSS will be the salvation of democracy, and I mean that literally. No matter how various countries try to control Internet access and content, the genie is out of the bottle and in hundreds of millions of hands. There may yet be hope, though I am pessimistic. If it were just a question of electing the right leaders and holding them to account, I would be a lot more hopeful. But way too many of my fellow citizens chuck away their rights without a second thought, and think everyone else should do the same. |
| Abe Oct 16, 2005 6:08 PM EDT |
You just turned me to a pessimist. Are you happy now!
No seriuously, I agree with many of the points you cited; Something has to be done about them before it is too late. Everything is getting from bad to worse. The biggest problem I see is people are not taking these issues seriously enough or becoming more complacent leaving it up to other to take action instead. It also could be that people are too busy trying to make a living and getting a little selfish. You also bring up a good point about FOSS possibly becoming the salavation. FOSS is not an IT movement only, it is also a social one which could apply to many other areas where people could collaborate on advancing and accomplishing. Unfortunately, FOSS proliferation is still not as fast as we hope it to be. That is why it is very important for FOSS to be introduced to schools as quickly as possible for future generation to see its benefits early on. |
| hkwint Oct 17, 2005 12:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:Unfortunately, FOSS proliferation is still not as fast as we hope it to be. Not in the US maybe. Don't be afraid; when the American economy collapses - because citizens of countries like China don't want to work for the money they loan to Americans which are consuming it anymore - American companies won't have the money to spend to MS-products anymore. When competing with low-wage-countries (don't know if this is a valid English word, but you should understand it), expensive software should be one of the first things to consider for cuts, before firing real personnel. Yes, exaggerating here, but there is a point I'm making: I always thought American was a capitalistic country. Capitalistic turns out to be: making as much money as possible, but companies are just stupid and give away their money to one of the richest company in the world. And companies are indeed firing people instead of cutting on software-costs. As you can see: I'm an optimist, I see a very bright feature for FOSS. |
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!