Excellent article
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| beirwin Dec 14, 2006 3:57 PM EDT |
I've often wondered why non-profit activist organizations and the FOSS world don't intersect. This article explores the reasons, and how these two solitudes can come together. |
| jimf Dec 14, 2006 4:46 PM EDT |
That runs counter to my experience. I've found that when I try to tout the ethical and social relevancy of FOSS, even those who are concerned and involved with other social issues, just turn off. Now, I know this isn't my youthfulness, cause I'm far from that profile. I think the fact is that any of us humans are only interested in the ethics of a situation if it directly relates to their life. In other words, the situation 'really' has to annoy them. To most non technical people, whatever their other concerns, computers and operating systems are just background noise (a means to an end) and certainly not a social 'issue'. They will put up with MS and all the proprietary garbage, as long as it (more or less) gets the job done for them. This attitude is no different for 'activists' than it is for the general population. |
| mfioretti Dec 15, 2006 1:30 AM EDT |
"I've found that when I try to tout the ethical and social relevancy of FOSS, even those who are concerned and involved with other social issues, just turn off... To most non technical people, whatever their other concerns, computers and operating systems are just background noise" Well said. A big part of the problem is just that most FOSS activists are, almost always, really unable to grasp this truth, or to not consider inferior an human being that reasons in this way. Far too much of the current pro-FOSS propaganda still starts from, and ends to, some variant of "how beautiful and altruistic it is to see and change source code" like THAT were the goal, not a mean to something else. EVEN when they mention DRM, freedom of speech and so on. Today this way of talking is just wasted with most people. All those who could be convinced with those arguments have already heard them a thousand time by now. Marco |
| jimf Dec 15, 2006 2:02 AM EDT |
> EVEN when they mention DRM, freedom of speech and so on. What 'does' get the value of open source across is something like the recent voting machine issues, which compromise freedom of the vote with their proprietary programming, or, the case where the city's parking garage got locked down cause no one could be found who understood how to fix the proprietary software (no one likes their car hijacked). But, be prepared to explain this all on a very basic level. Most don't even really know what code is, much less how it pertains to freedom. Unless you can relate it to infringement on the rights they already recognize and value, expect to see the glazed eyed look of the technically ignorant. |
| mfioretti Dec 15, 2006 2:42 AM EDT |
> What 'does' get the value of open source across is something like the recent voting
> machine issues, which compromise freedom of the vote with their proprietary
> programming Personally, I am convinced that e-voting is a dumb and wrong idea in and by itself, even if Open Source, for the reasons I explained at http://digifreedom.net/node/52. This said, I agree 100% with you on the method. Talking to a VERY basic level of "infringement on the rights [all people] already recognize and value" is the only way to go and exactly what I plan to do with my book. Of course, if I and you try this approach, but the majority of LUG members and other FOSS activists keeps sticking to the same old slogans and languge, the result will remain the one that Byfield reports... |
| jimf Dec 15, 2006 3:09 AM EDT |
> e-voting is a dumb and wrong idea in and by itself Without a paper trail that's certainly true. |
| SamShazaam Dec 15, 2006 4:20 AM EDT |
I have always wondered why groups such as the ACLU took so little interest in these issues. They continue to re-fight old battles over some minor point when FOSS issues effect so much more of society into the future. Sadly the only logical conclusion I have come up with is that many of their membership and financial supporters also belong to groups such as RIAA and MPAA. Principles are nice but they have to pay the bills. Average people, on the other hand, lead very busy lives and don't believe that these issues concern them. That is until the day comes when they want to copy a CD for their car and cannot. By then it is too late. |
| mfioretti Dec 15, 2006 5:09 AM EDT |
> I have always wondered why groups such as the ACLU took so little interest in these issues. ...Sadly the only logical conclusion... is that many of their membership and financial supporters also belong to groups such as RIAA and MPAA... Average people, on the other hand, lead very busy lives and don't believe that these issues concern them. I am pretty sure that your "average people" explanation also applies to groups like ACLU, or Greenpeace for that matter. Software is unintelligible black magic for 95% of people. This is a fact of life, and it's not a declaration that they are stupid or inferior in any way. There are plenty of very smart people which are geniuses or at least very competent in some fields and totally uninterested or opaque to others. We're all different, that's it > That is until the day comes when they want to copy a CD for their car and cannot. By then it is too late. This is exactly the situation I hope to change with my book. Feedback on its table of contents http://digifreedom.net/node/71 (through that website, of course, not here) is always welcome. |
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!