Slashdot Mirror

Jeremy Arnold has written an essay on what he calls LUTE- the Linux Usability Testing and Evaluation project. It could help make programs more usable by organizing volunteers to test software and clean things up. Far to often great programmers aren't the best at creating the ideal user interface. Perhaps this project could put people who understand the human factors in touch with the guys who write the killer code. Hit the link below to read it and throw in your 2 bits. The following was written by Slashdot reader Jeremy Arnold The LUTE Project Linux Usability Testing and Evaluation Last week on Slashdot an article was posted about an essay on user interface design. As a comment to that article I brought forth an idea for a group of people who would do usability testing for Open Source Linux projects. The response to the idea was generally positive, so I have now prepared this more formal proposal. If I can find a place to host web pages and a mailing list and Slashdot readers agree there is a need for this group and some are willing to volunteer their time to be part of it, the Lute project should be running shortly.

What is the Lute project? LUTE stands for "Linux Usability Testing and Evaluation". A bit redundant, but I like acronyms that form words. :) Usability testing is the process of testing the user interface for a piece of software to make sure that it makes sense to the user. "Makes sense" refers to the interface being intuitive and consistent, and generally that the user interface helps the user rather than frustrating them. Note that there is a difference between "usability testing" and just plain "testing". Lute does not exist to find bugs in software. The purpose is to find flaws in the user interface.

Most commercial software development includes a usability testing phase, and the most usable software generally includes usability testing throughout the development cycle. Large software development companies usually have a "usability testing lab" with lots of (somewhat) fancy equipment to aid them in this testing. This, of course, translates to money, which most open source projects do not have. Usability testing can be performed (though somewhat less effectively) with no special equipment, but it is an area which many open source developers are unfamiliar with, and most do not take the time to do it.

As Linux becomes more accepted in the commercial world and starts to be used by more "common users" rather than the traditional hacker types, software usability will become more and more important.

The Lute project is an attempt to address these issues by performing usability testing for open source projects. This testing will be performed for free by Lute volunteers. On the web, Lute will also serve as an information center for good user interface design as well as techniques for usability testing and evaluation.

Lute will not force developers to use certain toolkits (such as KDE/Qt or Gnome/GTK). In fact, when testing a program, Lute volunteers won't even be looking at the source code. In addition, Lute will not enforce strict standards (like forcing you to use 5 pixels between buttons and 10 point bold Helvetica font for menu text). Upon completing testing, the Lute volunteer wil l give an evaluation back to the developer about what aspects of the interface work well, and, more importantly, what aspects don't work well. The evaluator will also try to give the developer ideas on how to improve these aspects. It is up to the developer to choose whether or not to implement these changes, and how to do it.

How will Lute work? These details are subject to change, but this is how I envision Lute working. The developer will submit a request for an evaluation of his/her project. (Of course, most open source projects have multiple developers. In this case, one developer would act as the liaison to Lute.) This request will include a short description of the program, a list of features to be tested (sometimes this will be the whole program, other times just a few features may need to be tested), and a developer contact (email address).

Once a request has been submitted, it will probably be appended to a web page list of pending projects and sent out on a Lute mailing list. Lute evaluators can then choose to accept the project. The evaluator will write up a list of tasks to use for the test. These tasks are the things that the user will perform in order to give the evaluator a good feel for what works well and what doesn't. After preparing this task list, the evaluator will discuss it with the developer to make sure that the developer thinks it adequately covers the expected uses of the program. The evaluator would then find about 3 "average users" to test the program with, and report back to the developer with the findings.

Note that the definition of an "average user" could be a bit different for each project. For example, the average user of a programming IDE would be a programmer, while the average user of a web browser might be the evaluator's mother. Also note that the average users will generally be somebody the evaluator knows, and they must be able to meet in person to perform the evaluation. (If you disagree with this condition, go read some articles/books on usability testing and then post an informed comment here.)

This "formal testing" process could take a bit of time, and is probably overkill at times, especially when usability testing is performed regularly throughout the development cycle. In this case, a full formal test should certainly be performed from time to time, but at other times the developer might just need an "expert opinion" about how the usability of an application could be improved. For this, the developer might put in a request for an "expert opinion" (or perhaps this should be "somewhat informed opinion"), at which time a Lute evaluator could volunteer for the project and then look at the program and make recommendations based on their prior experience with and knowledge of user interface design and testing. Note that this is a supplement to the formal testing, and not a replacement. The formal testing can be much more effective; it just takes a bit more time and effort to do.

What roles are involved? Here is a description of the various roles which need to be fulfilled for this to work:

• Project Maintainer

  I am currently this person. I will be in charge of setting up the infrastructure for the project, including things like web pages and mailing lists. I will also be in charge of facilitating communication between Lute volunteers, and make the final decisions in policy matters. Most open source projects have some type of "benevolent dictator". Lute's "Project Maintainer" is the same type of thing.

  In case somebody cares, I am Jeremy Arnold (jeremy_a@bigfoot.com). Last spring I graduated from Utah State University with a bachelor's degree in Computer Science, and I now work as a Java Performance tester for IBM. I have little formal experience with user interface design, and my usability testing experience consists of about a week doing usability testing on a program I developed during a summer internship. I certainly don't claim to be an expert in this area, but it is something I find very interesting and in many ways it comes naturally to me. I have been a Linux user for about 4 years now, although I have never really (previously) taken a very active part in the Linux development community.

• Evaluator

  These are the people who will do most of the real work for Lute. They will then volunteer to evaluate the programs submitted by the developers, and report their findings back to the developer.

  While I don't expect the evaluators to have years of experience in usability testing, they will be required to have at least some knowledge in the area. At a minimum, this will probably mean they have to read some on-line information about it, and perhaps for their first project or two a more experienced evaluator will also evaluate the program and then give some feedback to the new evaluator about any areas they might be able to improve in. This is not meant to scare off people who would like to help; I just feel it is necessary in order to provide quality feedback to developers and not lose credibility for Lute. Anybody who has done some work with user interface design and knows the challenges involved could probably pick up the necessary knowledge to be an evaluator pretty quickly.

• Developer

  Developers are, of course, the people who are developing open source projects. More specifically, they are the ones developing open source projects with user interfaces. This does not necessarily mean graphical user interfaces, although most programs evaluated by Lute probably will have GUIs. Any program that interacts with the user has some kind of user interface, and can be evaluated by Lute.

  Lute will only evaluate programs at the request of a developer. The programs to be evaluated must be open source (as a matter of principle....I am not against closed source development for some projects, but Lute is really designed to help open source developers) and freely available (if the developers are charging users for their product, then they can afford to pay somebody for usability testing). I refuse to get into a debate about whether or not KDE is really free, but programs written using KDE/Qt fit the definition of free used in this paragraph, and are eligible for Lute evaluation.

  Lute will encourage (and perhaps require) the developer to read some general information on user interface design before we will evaluate their program. This is simply because it is a waste of time for us to evaluate a program that has no consideration for well-known design principles and then report on all the ways their program violates these principles. Any required reading will be as short as possible.

  Programs to be evaluated must have a reasonably functional interface. It is best to evaluate the user interface of a program before it is completed, so that the framework can be fixed before a lot of code is developed over it. However, even if the program is not complete, the user interface must be functional. If your program has a button labeled "Find a cure for cancer and generate world peace" (not necessarily a good name for a button), it doesn't have to actually find a cure for cancer and generate world peace, but if I press that button it should pop up a window that says that the cancer-curing peace-generating functionality is not implemented, rather than just sitting there or crashing the program or something.

• Average User

  The evaluator will test the program by observing average people use the program (performing the list of tasks given by the observer). These users are very important, as they can show the evaluator the types of difficulties that most people will have when using the program.

  Average users are not direct volunteers to Lute as the evaluators are. This is because evaluators need to be able to watch the users as they run the program, which means they must be geographically near the person. Because of this, evaluators will generally find average users among the people around them. Luckily, average computer users are pretty abundant in the world, so this shouldn't be a problem.

  Besides the need for geographical proximity, volunteers to be average users would not be desirable. If a person is an "average user" for 50 usability tests, they are no longer average. That person should consider becoming an evaluator.

• Web page/mailing list host

  As mentioned far above, the Lute project is also in need of somebody to host the needed web pages and mailing list(s). If the project becomes popular, I could afford to get a permanent connection to the Internet and use my machine as the host, but I would rather not spend that money until the project gets moving and looks like it is going to succeed. CGI (or perhaps Java servlets?) access on the web host would be really helpful, as I hope to get much of the process of submitting requests for evaluation and stuff automated. Even if the project does become quite popular, I wouldn't expect the mailing list to be extremely high volume or the web pages to need high bandwidth (except of course if the URL was posted on Slashdot).

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Post them here, and I will try to answer them. A lot of the details remain to be decided, most likely once there is a team of Lute evaluators. Note that all of the policy and procedure stuff in this article is not set in stone. It is just my thoughts on how things would work best. Like I said, I don't claim to be an expert, and it is quite possible (and even likely) that things could be done better.

"I want to help. What do I do?" I'm glad you would like to help. If you would like to be a Lute volunteer as an evaluator, web/mailing list host, send me email (jeremy_a@bigfoot.com) and let me know. Personal replies are unlikely for evaluators, but I will let you know once the mailing list is set up.

Greg Perkins has written in with a nice paper on Open Source and Capitalism. A lot of people say that these ideas are oil and water, but click the link below and read what Greg has to say about it. Update Greg sent in response to the many comments. It's appended to the end of his original piece. The following was written by Slashdot reader Greg Perkins Open Source and Capitalism

Greg Perkins

Many people associate the idea of Open Source software with collectivism (socialism, communitarianism, or communism). This is understandable given the language and ideas of some of the movement's founders and prominent participants, and given the average political tendencies of college students (at least here in the US), who seem to form the core of the Open Source movement. That is of course no cause for concern. What troubles me is that I keep noticing an undercurrent of mistrust and even open hostility toward capitalism among Open Source fans. There is really no good reason for this, and I worry that it may grow into something truly dangerous to the movement.

I have seen it asked: how can capitalists enjoy and even embrace the Open Source ideal? Hidden in this question is the notion that capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with Open Source, and that collectivism is not. While this is sure to be a touchy subject, I would like to try sharing the principled perspective of the Other Side.

In contrast to the above, I think that it is capitalism which is harmonious with Open Source, and that collectivism is incompatible; principled and thoughtful Open Source advocates should want to fully embrace capitalism for exactly the same reasons they love the idea of Open Source.

The (Societal) Elements of Open Source

I know that most people here have studied the meaning and mechanism of Open Source pretty carefully (consider the popularity of Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar, for example). Let's focus briefly on the crucial societal elements which Open Source depends on for its success:

First, Open Source depends on the idea that cooperation is the preferred mode for dealing with one another, that cooperation and voluntary association to mutual benefit is the most effective, most productive, and, well, simply the Right Way for people to live in society, as contrasted against the use of fraud or physical force. Individual Open Source authors have the right to choose what code they will write and with whom they might like to work -- nobody is allowed to make them do it. When someone else makes that choice for you it is called slavery, and Open Source couldn't be as successful as it is on those terms; peoples' active, willing participation is required.

Second, Open Source depends on the idea of the individual human right to private property. Code wouldn't exist except by the effort of the people who build it -- it is by their choice and their sweat that their code even exists, and so they naturally have the right to decide how they will deploy their creation (otherwise, why should they bother to create it in the first place?). Linus himself expressed this spirit perfectly when he said, "he who writes the code gets to choose the license, and nobody else gets to complain." Open Source authors generously choose to apply licenses like the GPL to their code, thereby exercising their right to dictate how their effort may be used (and how it may not be used).

And finally, Open Source requires the protection of private property rights by a government. People need more than to merely feel justified in saying how they wish their code to be used (and not used) -- they must have confidence that their wishes will not be violated and the product of their best efforts taken and used at just anybody's whim. People can be secure in their cooperation with one another toward whatever ends each may choose when their right to private property is protected. Doing so essentially means barring the initiation of physical force and fraud from peoples' legitimate dealings, leaving them with nothing but cooperation and trade to mutual benefit. We can see this confidence manifest as authors willingly write Open Source code, or help someone write Open Source code: they do so because they trust that the license will be enforced, that someone else cannot take advantage of them and direct their efforts to ends they do not wish.

Another Look at Capitalism

Here's the point that might surprise some Open Source advocates: the above three crucial factors are precisely the same foundation that is required for true, unadulterated, laissez-faire capitalism.

Capitalism is a social system which respects and defends peoples' individual human rights, including the right to property. Further, capitalism is epitomized by cooperation, not by competition -- competition arises in the context of several participants trying to out-cooperate each other in a division-of-labor economy. As a tiny example, consider the handful of pencil companies competing in "cutthroat, dog-eat-dog" manner with each other for the chance to cooperate with you. Now think about how many other economic partners each of them works with in trying to bring you that pencil, from the people mining the graphite and harvesting the wood and rubber, to the transport systems which take them to the factories full of people, the manufacturing and chemical engineers who design the processes, the marketing and distribution channels, and the retailer who makes it easy for you to have that pencil with little or no effort. Thousands and thousands of people all peacefully work in concert to bring you a pencil (not to mention all those who cooperate with them, and those who cooperate with them, and so on). Multiply that by all the other economic values in your life that aren't as insignificant as a humble pencil, and you can see that fundamentally, capitalism means cooperation.

Full-blown capitalism is actually the separation of market and state. In particular, it is not the current American- or European-style mixed economy, with some people and businesses having the ability to use government to secure special advantage over others by lobbying for taxes, regulations, etc. To the extent that people and companies can use government to indirectly compel others in economic matters, capitalism and everything that makes it great is undercut. In the same way that we react to proposals to control the press or the church, in a true capitalist system everybody would simply laugh at someone trying to use the heavy hand of government to some economic advantage. We would just point to the constitutional clause banning any such interference, telling them, "Tough beans -- why don't you try to persuade the people in the marketplace that you are worth doing business with?"

Common Grounds

So if you cheer for the idea of Open Source, then please cheer for what makes Open Source work. If you do that, then you are also cheering for exactly what makes capitalism work, and everything that makes it such a powerful force for improving the human lot in the world.

As a libertarian and staunch capitalist, I get a true charge out of seeing an innovative entrepreneur or inventor serving himself by serving his fellow man in some new, clever, or powerful way. As a software engineer and rabid Open Source advocate, I get a true charge out of seeing the genius behind Stallman's GPL and the meteoric rise of Open Source and GNU/Linux. What makes these great to me is the same in both cases: people are able to be productive and peacefully reap the rewards of their hard work as they see fit.

Banning fraud and the initiation of force in our dealings with one another, and respecting people and their choices as individuals by protecting their property rights... These form a kind of systemic encouragement which brings out the very best within us -- and that is precisely what drives the raging success of both Open Source and capitalism.

Recommended Reading

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is a classic, widely regarded as a wonderful (perhaps the best) first introduction to economics.

Capitalism: a Treatise on Economics by Dr. George Reisman is a lucid and encyclopedic account of capitalism and all things economic.

Also see the works of scholars from the Austrian school of economics, like Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich A. Von Hayek (1974 Nobel in economics), or scholars from the Chicago school of economics, such as Milton Friedman (1976 Nobel in economics) or James Buchanan (1986 Nobel in economics).

A Followup from Greg Perkins

250 comments in a day -- what a wonderful firestorm of discussion!

Now, surely the more harsh commentators understand that in a short piece like my editorial, no author could even try to cover every anticipated objection or outright mistake in reading and reasoning that a minority of the audience might bring. That would simply bore or distract the majority of readers, perhaps to the point of missing the original thesis! I needed to leave such issues for the ensuing discussion.

And boy, I was pleasantly surprised by what happened! A horde of nimble-fing ered Slashdotters quickly jumped in after the first wave of commentary, answering and dissecting almost all of the incoming criticism quite nicely, relieving me of a lot of work -- thanks much, guys! :^)

However, there remain a couple of important themes that my quick-response comrades didn't address, and so I'll try to cover those here -- starting with the most important and surprising one.

What the Hay??

This trend really did surprise me. Here are a handful of examples where it happened -- notice what they have in common when I put them side-by-si de?

• People, it amazes me that some one can equate Linux, a shining example of sharing and cooperation, with capitalism, a system based on hoarding and selfishness. [Rodion Raskolnikov (), "POLL!! POLL!! POLL!!"]
  
  [The] only thing i can assume is that the author had only 1 thing in mind and that was to get people to join his movement. "Well if i can show that capitalism==GNU then fellow GNUers will join my organization or whatever". [Paul (paul@waterw.com), "Propaganda" ;]

  Open source functions on a gift economy. Sure, some of the behavior could be explained with free market principles ... but it is fundamentally different than the sort of role that the original essayist is trying to force it into. When I write code and I give it away, I get nothing but the satisfaction of writing interesting code, and the satisfaction that someone else is using it. That's not capitalism. [Anonymous Coward (), "Re: Back-asswards!"]

  It's always amusing to me to see some ultra captial weenies taking an idea like Open Source, which is effectively as socialistic as you can get in today's society falling all over themselves to cry out that it isn't, that capitalism and open source are exactly the same thing, yammer yammer yammer. [adr (jbfink@nospammy.entropy.muc .muohio.edu), "amusing"]

  Sheesh. Grow up. "Open Source" ... only superficially shares some ideas with economic theory. There's more to living than just money, and there are many more models of economy than just two. [Markus Fleck (!spam-fleck@informatik.uni-bonn.de), "Bla bla bla..."]

What these and so many other lines of criticism share is a clear misundersta nding of my thesis: they somehow latched onto the idea that I am identifying capitalist free markets and the Open Source movement as being the same thing, and then they went running down the rhetorical road on that false premise. Maybe I was not quite clear enough in the original piece, but I trust that if you look back up at my editorial with a little care, you will find that I never make such a claim. I was not even hoping for such an inference. Indeed, the summary in my conclusion seems quite clear about my hopes:

• So if you cheer for the idea of Open Source, then please cheer for what makes Open Source work. If you do that, then you are also cheering for exactly what makes capitalism work... These [common underpinnings] form a kind of systemic encouragement which brings out the very best within us -- and that is precisely what drives the raging success of both Open Source and capitalism.

Of course the Open Source movement and capitalist free markets are not one and the same, and I wouldn't want anyone to think so. My point is that they share a common foundation which fuels their tremendous effectiveness; these common underpinnings are themselves neither Open Source, nor capitalism -- but they foster both, and identifying them allows us to see and better understand the strengths of both Open Source and capitalism. This point leads naturally into my argument that capitalism is not fundamentally at odds with Open Source, a system which shares the same foundational underpinnings -- and so the mistrust and hostility I have been seeing directed at capitalism by some Open Source fans seems misplaced.

Open Source in the Here and Now

An interesting complaint surfaced regarding those underpinnings: some seem to think that it isn't legitimate that I rely on the fact that licenses like the GPL use the ideas of private property and the defense of individual rights, since by some interpretations of the Open Source Founders, its current form of is only accommodating our current circumstances and is not yet the Ideal Deal:

• The GPL exists (in this form) just because we live in a more or less capitalist world. Therefore it is adopted to the needs of this capitalist world. To conclude that because the GPL shows capitalistic elements, Open Source is capitalistic is IMHO an infinite loop. [Sebastian Schaffert (wastl@woanders.de), "Re: amusing", my underline]

  Open source matches the Marxist notion far better that the libertarian-ca pitalist notion, although it matches it only imperfectly. The GPL is very much a legal means of enforcing the kind of relationship that many believe ought to be natural law. It's a loophole, not the core of the philosophy. [vlax (vlax@yahoo.com) , "Sometimes, you just have to laugh", my underline]

But my observation is resting on the actual, stunning success of Open Source in today's world, on today's GPL terms, and in today's political systems -- not in some dreamt-of, hoped-for future place that may be talked about in recommended readings at the FSF. If someone wishes to argue that some other prospective Open Source system might do as well as (or better than) what we have today, then I welcome their giving it a try. But even if someone somehow makes that argument work, it wouldn't itself do anything to disturb my thesis that the powerful and successful Open Source movement we have before us right now shares the very same foundation as capitalism.

There's Cooperation -- and then there's Cooperation

Several people expressed trouble with my saying that "fundamentally, capitalism means cooperation":

• This is one of those motherhood statements that means nothing when you think about it carefully. Consider some alternatives:

  • "fundamentally, communism means cooperation"
  • "fundamentally, anarchism means cooperation"
  • "fundamentally, fascism means cooperation"
  • "acephalous band-level hunter-gatherer groups are fundamentally dependent on cooperation"

  The truth is, human existence pretty much "means cooperation". [Danny Yee (danny@anatomy.usyd.edu.au), "capitalism means cooperation?"]

  I agree entirely with [the] gripe on the assertion "capitalism means cooperation". It is a null statement. What societal system could exist at all without some degree of cooperation. [The Famous Brett Watson (famous@nutters.org), 'Null statement: "capitalism means cooperation"' ]

Certainly there is a lot of cooperation among people in most any societal system. But capitalism, with its explicit ban on fraud and the initiation of force between people for the express purpose of leaving people with nothing but persuasion and freedom of association in their dealings with one another, is quite different. Communism, fascism, socialism, and even our mixed economy, etc., do not consistently demand that we behave as traders, acting to mutual benefit, persuading our neighbor to work with us. Non-capitalist systems legitimatimize the initiation of (often quite naked) force as a common and convenient means of dealing with one another: all you need is to get the political pull or the popular votes to have your way, and others must "cooperate&quo t; -- whether they ultimately benefit or not, and whether they want to or not.

The Slavery of Wages

Okay, one final, tiny point.

• • When someone else makes that choice for you it is called slavery,

• Interesting comment coming from a capitalist.. So when my boss says "do that" I am a slave, eh? You're basically defining capitalism as wage slavery.. not a very good start on an essay that is supposed to defend capitalism. [ir (mattc@nospam.pob ox.com), "Free Software"]

Notice that I said "someone else makes that choice", not just that "something forces your choice". Despite appearances , I was actually being pretty careful about it. When your boss says "do that", you clearly have a choice where a slave does not: you can quit. But you would starve, you say? Not to be too flip about it (well, maybe just a little :^), but it sounds as if your primary complaint of "injustice" is with reality -- not with your boss. He should have freedom of association just as you should, and you have no right to do business with him unless he wants to do business with you (othewise you are not being a trader, and he would be a slave).

I know of no capitalist who would argue that you have a right to be exempt from the laws of reality.

Greg Perkins has written in with a nice paper on Open Source and Capitalism. A lot of people say that these ideas are oil and water, but click the link below and read what Greg has to say about it. Update Greg sent in response to the many comments. It's appended to the end of his original piece. The following was written by Slashdot reader Greg Perkins Open Source and Capitalism

Greg Perkins

Many people associate the idea of Open Source software with collectivism (socialism, communitarianism, or communism). This is understandable given the language and ideas of some of the movement's founders and prominent participants, and given the average political tendencies of college students (at least here in the US), who seem to form the core of the Open Source movement. That is of course no cause for concern. What troubles me is that I keep noticing an undercurrent of mistrust and even open hostility toward capitalism among Open Source fans. There is really no good reason for this, and I worry that it may grow into something truly dangerous to the movement.

I have seen it asked: how can capitalists enjoy and even embrace the Open Source ideal? Hidden in this question is the notion that capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with Open Source, and that collectivism is not. While this is sure to be a touchy subject, I would like to try sharing the principled perspective of the Other Side.

In contrast to the above, I think that it is capitalism which is harmonious with Open Source, and that collectivism is incompatible; principled and thoughtful Open Source advocates should want to fully embrace capitalism for exactly the same reasons they love the idea of Open Source.

The (Societal) Elements of Open Source

I know that most people here have studied the meaning and mechanism of Open Source pretty carefully (consider the popularity of Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar, for example). Let's focus briefly on the crucial societal elements which Open Source depends on for its success:

First, Open Source depends on the idea that cooperation is the preferred mode for dealing with one another, that cooperation and voluntary association to mutual benefit is the most effective, most productive, and, well, simply the Right Way for people to live in society, as contrasted against the use of fraud or physical force. Individual Open Source authors have the right to choose what code they will write and with whom they might like to work -- nobody is allowed to make them do it. When someone else makes that choice for you it is called slavery, and Open Source couldn't be as successful as it is on those terms; peoples' active, willing participation is required.

Second, Open Source depends on the idea of the individual human right to private property. Code wouldn't exist except by the effort of the people who build it -- it is by their choice and their sweat that their code even exists, and so they naturally have the right to decide how they will deploy their creation (otherwise, why should they bother to create it in the first place?). Linus himself expressed this spirit perfectly when he said, "he who writes the code gets to choose the license, and nobody else gets to complain." Open Source authors generously choose to apply licenses like the GPL to their code, thereby exercising their right to dictate how their effort may be used (and how it may not be used).

And finally, Open Source requires the protection of private property rights by a government. People need more than to merely feel justified in saying how they wish their code to be used (and not used) -- they must have confidence that their wishes will not be violated and the product of their best efforts taken and used at just anybody's whim. People can be secure in their cooperation with one another toward whatever ends each may choose when their right to private property is protected. Doing so essentially means barring the initiation of physical force and fraud from peoples' legitimate dealings, leaving them with nothing but cooperation and trade to mutual benefit. We can see this confidence manifest as authors willingly write Open Source code, or help someone write Open Source code: they do so because they trust that the license will be enforced, that someone else cannot take advantage of them and direct their efforts to ends they do not wish.

Another Look at Capitalism

Here's the point that might surprise some Open Source advocates: the above three crucial factors are precisely the same foundation that is required for true, unadulterated, laissez-faire capitalism.

Capitalism is a social system which respects and defends peoples' individual human rights, including the right to property. Further, capitalism is epitomized by cooperation, not by competition -- competition arises in the context of several participants trying to out-cooperate each other in a division-of-labor economy. As a tiny example, consider the handful of pencil companies competing in "cutthroat, dog-eat-dog" manner with each other for the chance to cooperate with you. Now think about how many other economic partners each of them works with in trying to bring you that pencil, from the people mining the graphite and harvesting the wood and rubber, to the transport systems which take them to the factories full of people, the manufacturing and chemical engineers who design the processes, the marketing and distribution channels, and the retailer who makes it easy for you to have that pencil with little or no effort. Thousands and thousands of people all peacefully work in concert to bring you a pencil (not to mention all those who cooperate with them, and those who cooperate with them, and so on). Multiply that by all the other economic values in your life that aren't as insignificant as a humble pencil, and you can see that fundamentally, capitalism means cooperation.

Full-blown capitalism is actually the separation of market and state. In particular, it is not the current American- or European-style mixed economy, with some people and businesses having the ability to use government to secure special advantage over others by lobbying for taxes, regulations, etc. To the extent that people and companies can use government to indirectly compel others in economic matters, capitalism and everything that makes it great is undercut. In the same way that we react to proposals to control the press or the church, in a true capitalist system everybody would simply laugh at someone trying to use the heavy hand of government to some economic advantage. We would just point to the constitutional clause banning any such interference, telling them, "Tough beans -- why don't you try to persuade the people in the marketplace that you are worth doing business with?"

Common Grounds

So if you cheer for the idea of Open Source, then please cheer for what makes Open Source work. If you do that, then you are also cheering for exactly what makes capitalism work, and everything that makes it such a powerful force for improving the human lot in the world.

As a libertarian and staunch capitalist, I get a true charge out of seeing an innovative entrepreneur or inventor serving himself by serving his fellow man in some new, clever, or powerful way. As a software engineer and rabid Open Source advocate, I get a true charge out of seeing the genius behind Stallman's GPL and the meteoric rise of Open Source and GNU/Linux. What makes these great to me is the same in both cases: people are able to be productive and peacefully reap the rewards of their hard work as they see fit.

Banning fraud and the initiation of force in our dealings with one another, and respecting people and their choices as individuals by protecting their property rights... These form a kind of systemic encouragement which brings out the very best within us -- and that is precisely what drives the raging success of both Open Source and capitalism.

Recommended Reading

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is a classic, widely regarded as a wonderful (perhaps the best) first introduction to economics.

Capitalism: a Treatise on Economics by Dr. George Reisman is a lucid and encyclopedic account of capitalism and all things economic.

Also see the works of scholars from the Austrian school of economics, like Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich A. Von Hayek (1974 Nobel in economics), or scholars from the Chicago school of economics, such as Milton Friedman (1976 Nobel in economics) or James Buchanan (1986 Nobel in economics).

A Followup from Greg Perkins

250 comments in a day -- what a wonderful firestorm of discussion!

Now, surely the more harsh commentators understand that in a short piece like my editorial, no author could even try to cover every anticipated objection or outright mistake in reading and reasoning that a minority of the audience might bring. That would simply bore or distract the majority of readers, perhaps to the point of missing the original thesis! I needed to leave such issues for the ensuing discussion.

And boy, I was pleasantly surprised by what happened! A horde of nimble-fing ered Slashdotters quickly jumped in after the first wave of commentary, answering and dissecting almost all of the incoming criticism quite nicely, relieving me of a lot of work -- thanks much, guys! :^)

However, there remain a couple of important themes that my quick-response comrades didn't address, and so I'll try to cover those here -- starting with the most important and surprising one.

What the Hay??

This trend really did surprise me. Here are a handful of examples where it happened -- notice what they have in common when I put them side-by-si de?

• People, it amazes me that some one can equate Linux, a shining example of sharing and cooperation, with capitalism, a system based on hoarding and selfishness. [Rodion Raskolnikov (), "POLL!! POLL!! POLL!!"]
  
  [The] only thing i can assume is that the author had only 1 thing in mind and that was to get people to join his movement. "Well if i can show that capitalism==GNU then fellow GNUers will join my organization or whatever". [Paul (paul@waterw.com), "Propaganda" ;]

  Open source functions on a gift economy. Sure, some of the behavior could be explained with free market principles ... but it is fundamentally different than the sort of role that the original essayist is trying to force it into. When I write code and I give it away, I get nothing but the satisfaction of writing interesting code, and the satisfaction that someone else is using it. That's not capitalism. [Anonymous Coward (), "Re: Back-asswards!"]

  It's always amusing to me to see some ultra captial weenies taking an idea like Open Source, which is effectively as socialistic as you can get in today's society falling all over themselves to cry out that it isn't, that capitalism and open source are exactly the same thing, yammer yammer yammer. [adr (jbfink@nospammy.entropy.muc .muohio.edu), "amusing"]

  Sheesh. Grow up. "Open Source" ... only superficially shares some ideas with economic theory. There's more to living than just money, and there are many more models of economy than just two. [Markus Fleck (!spam-fleck@informatik.uni-bonn.de), "Bla bla bla..."]

What these and so many other lines of criticism share is a clear misundersta nding of my thesis: they somehow latched onto the idea that I am identifying capitalist free markets and the Open Source movement as being the same thing, and then they went running down the rhetorical road on that false premise. Maybe I was not quite clear enough in the original piece, but I trust that if you look back up at my editorial with a little care, you will find that I never make such a claim. I was not even hoping for such an inference. Indeed, the summary in my conclusion seems quite clear about my hopes:

• So if you cheer for the idea of Open Source, then please cheer for what makes Open Source work. If you do that, then you are also cheering for exactly what makes capitalism work... These [common underpinnings] form a kind of systemic encouragement which brings out the very best within us -- and that is precisely what drives the raging success of both Open Source and capitalism.

Of course the Open Source movement and capitalist free markets are not one and the same, and I wouldn't want anyone to think so. My point is that they share a common foundation which fuels their tremendous effectiveness; these common underpinnings are themselves neither Open Source, nor capitalism -- but they foster both, and identifying them allows us to see and better understand the strengths of both Open Source and capitalism. This point leads naturally into my argument that capitalism is not fundamentally at odds with Open Source, a system which shares the same foundational underpinnings -- and so the mistrust and hostility I have been seeing directed at capitalism by some Open Source fans seems misplaced.

Open Source in the Here and Now

An interesting complaint surfaced regarding those underpinnings: some seem to think that it isn't legitimate that I rely on the fact that licenses like the GPL use the ideas of private property and the defense of individual rights, since by some interpretations of the Open Source Founders, its current form of is only accommodating our current circumstances and is not yet the Ideal Deal:

• The GPL exists (in this form) just because we live in a more or less capitalist world. Therefore it is adopted to the needs of this capitalist world. To conclude that because the GPL shows capitalistic elements, Open Source is capitalistic is IMHO an infinite loop. [Sebastian Schaffert (wastl@woanders.de), "Re: amusing", my underline]

  Open source matches the Marxist notion far better that the libertarian-ca pitalist notion, although it matches it only imperfectly. The GPL is very much a legal means of enforcing the kind of relationship that many believe ought to be natural law. It's a loophole, not the core of the philosophy. [vlax (vlax@yahoo.com) , "Sometimes, you just have to laugh", my underline]

But my observation is resting on the actual, stunning success of Open Source in today's world, on today's GPL terms, and in today's political systems -- not in some dreamt-of, hoped-for future place that may be talked about in recommended readings at the FSF. If someone wishes to argue that some other prospective Open Source system might do as well as (or better than) what we have today, then I welcome their giving it a try. But even if someone somehow makes that argument work, it wouldn't itself do anything to disturb my thesis that the powerful and successful Open Source movement we have before us right now shares the very same foundation as capitalism.

There's Cooperation -- and then there's Cooperation

Several people expressed trouble with my saying that "fundamentally, capitalism means cooperation":

• This is one of those motherhood statements that means nothing when you think about it carefully. Consider some alternatives:

  • "fundamentally, communism means cooperation"
  • "fundamentally, anarchism means cooperation"
  • "fundamentally, fascism means cooperation"
  • "acephalous band-level hunter-gatherer groups are fundamentally dependent on cooperation"

  The truth is, human existence pretty much "means cooperation". [Danny Yee (danny@anatomy.usyd.edu.au), "capitalism means cooperation?"]

  I agree entirely with [the] gripe on the assertion "capitalism means cooperation". It is a null statement. What societal system could exist at all without some degree of cooperation. [The Famous Brett Watson (famous@nutters.org), 'Null statement: "capitalism means cooperation"' ]

Certainly there is a lot of cooperation among people in most any societal system. But capitalism, with its explicit ban on fraud and the initiation of force between people for the express purpose of leaving people with nothing but persuasion and freedom of association in their dealings with one another, is quite different. Communism, fascism, socialism, and even our mixed economy, etc., do not consistently demand that we behave as traders, acting to mutual benefit, persuading our neighbor to work with us. Non-capitalist systems legitimatimize the initiation of (often quite naked) force as a common and convenient means of dealing with one another: all you need is to get the political pull or the popular votes to have your way, and others must "cooperate&quo t; -- whether they ultimately benefit or not, and whether they want to or not.

The Slavery of Wages

Okay, one final, tiny point.

• • When someone else makes that choice for you it is called slavery,

• Interesting comment coming from a capitalist.. So when my boss says "do that" I am a slave, eh? You're basically defining capitalism as wage slavery.. not a very good start on an essay that is supposed to defend capitalism. [ir (mattc@nospam.pob ox.com), "Free Software"]

Notice that I said "someone else makes that choice", not just that "something forces your choice". Despite appearances , I was actually being pretty careful about it. When your boss says "do that", you clearly have a choice where a slave does not: you can quit. But you would starve, you say? Not to be too flip about it (well, maybe just a little :^), but it sounds as if your primary complaint of "injustice" is with reality -- not with your boss. He should have freedom of association just as you should, and you have no right to do business with him unless he wants to do business with you (othewise you are not being a trader, and he would be a slave).

I know of no capitalist who would argue that you have a right to be exempt from the laws of reality.

Greg Perkins has written in with a nice paper on Open Source and Capitalism. A lot of people say that these ideas are oil and water, but click the link below and read what Greg has to say about it. Update Greg sent in response to the many comments. It's appended to the end of his original piece. The following was written by Slashdot reader Greg Perkins Open Source and Capitalism

Greg Perkins

Many people associate the idea of Open Source software with collectivism (socialism, communitarianism, or communism). This is understandable given the language and ideas of some of the movement's founders and prominent participants, and given the average political tendencies of college students (at least here in the US), who seem to form the core of the Open Source movement. That is of course no cause for concern. What troubles me is that I keep noticing an undercurrent of mistrust and even open hostility toward capitalism among Open Source fans. There is really no good reason for this, and I worry that it may grow into something truly dangerous to the movement.

I have seen it asked: how can capitalists enjoy and even embrace the Open Source ideal? Hidden in this question is the notion that capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with Open Source, and that collectivism is not. While this is sure to be a touchy subject, I would like to try sharing the principled perspective of the Other Side.

In contrast to the above, I think that it is capitalism which is harmonious with Open Source, and that collectivism is incompatible; principled and thoughtful Open Source advocates should want to fully embrace capitalism for exactly the same reasons they love the idea of Open Source.

The (Societal) Elements of Open Source

I know that most people here have studied the meaning and mechanism of Open Source pretty carefully (consider the popularity of Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar, for example). Let's focus briefly on the crucial societal elements which Open Source depends on for its success:

First, Open Source depends on the idea that cooperation is the preferred mode for dealing with one another, that cooperation and voluntary association to mutual benefit is the most effective, most productive, and, well, simply the Right Way for people to live in society, as contrasted against the use of fraud or physical force. Individual Open Source authors have the right to choose what code they will write and with whom they might like to work -- nobody is allowed to make them do it. When someone else makes that choice for you it is called slavery, and Open Source couldn't be as successful as it is on those terms; peoples' active, willing participation is required.

Second, Open Source depends on the idea of the individual human right to private property. Code wouldn't exist except by the effort of the people who build it -- it is by their choice and their sweat that their code even exists, and so they naturally have the right to decide how they will deploy their creation (otherwise, why should they bother to create it in the first place?). Linus himself expressed this spirit perfectly when he said, "he who writes the code gets to choose the license, and nobody else gets to complain." Open Source authors generously choose to apply licenses like the GPL to their code, thereby exercising their right to dictate how their effort may be used (and how it may not be used).

And finally, Open Source requires the protection of private property rights by a government. People need more than to merely feel justified in saying how they wish their code to be used (and not used) -- they must have confidence that their wishes will not be violated and the product of their best efforts taken and used at just anybody's whim. People can be secure in their cooperation with one another toward whatever ends each may choose when their right to private property is protected. Doing so essentially means barring the initiation of physical force and fraud from peoples' legitimate dealings, leaving them with nothing but cooperation and trade to mutual benefit. We can see this confidence manifest as authors willingly write Open Source code, or help someone write Open Source code: they do so because they trust that the license will be enforced, that someone else cannot take advantage of them and direct their efforts to ends they do not wish.

Another Look at Capitalism

Here's the point that might surprise some Open Source advocates: the above three crucial factors are precisely the same foundation that is required for true, unadulterated, laissez-faire capitalism.

Capitalism is a social system which respects and defends peoples' individual human rights, including the right to property. Further, capitalism is epitomized by cooperation, not by competition -- competition arises in the context of several participants trying to out-cooperate each other in a division-of-labor economy. As a tiny example, consider the handful of pencil companies competing in "cutthroat, dog-eat-dog" manner with each other for the chance to cooperate with you. Now think about how many other economic partners each of them works with in trying to bring you that pencil, from the people mining the graphite and harvesting the wood and rubber, to the transport systems which take them to the factories full of people, the manufacturing and chemical engineers who design the processes, the marketing and distribution channels, and the retailer who makes it easy for you to have that pencil with little or no effort. Thousands and thousands of people all peacefully work in concert to bring you a pencil (not to mention all those who cooperate with them, and those who cooperate with them, and so on). Multiply that by all the other economic values in your life that aren't as insignificant as a humble pencil, and you can see that fundamentally, capitalism means cooperation.

Full-blown capitalism is actually the separation of market and state. In particular, it is not the current American- or European-style mixed economy, with some people and businesses having the ability to use government to secure special advantage over others by lobbying for taxes, regulations, etc. To the extent that people and companies can use government to indirectly compel others in economic matters, capitalism and everything that makes it great is undercut. In the same way that we react to proposals to control the press or the church, in a true capitalist system everybody would simply laugh at someone trying to use the heavy hand of government to some economic advantage. We would just point to the constitutional clause banning any such interference, telling them, "Tough beans -- why don't you try to persuade the people in the marketplace that you are worth doing business with?"

Common Grounds

So if you cheer for the idea of Open Source, then please cheer for what makes Open Source work. If you do that, then you are also cheering for exactly what makes capitalism work, and everything that makes it such a powerful force for improving the human lot in the world.

As a libertarian and staunch capitalist, I get a true charge out of seeing an innovative entrepreneur or inventor serving himself by serving his fellow man in some new, clever, or powerful way. As a software engineer and rabid Open Source advocate, I get a true charge out of seeing the genius behind Stallman's GPL and the meteoric rise of Open Source and GNU/Linux. What makes these great to me is the same in both cases: people are able to be productive and peacefully reap the rewards of their hard work as they see fit.

Banning fraud and the initiation of force in our dealings with one another, and respecting people and their choices as individuals by protecting their property rights... These form a kind of systemic encouragement which brings out the very best within us -- and that is precisely what drives the raging success of both Open Source and capitalism.

Recommended Reading

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is a classic, widely regarded as a wonderful (perhaps the best) first introduction to economics.

Capitalism: a Treatise on Economics by Dr. George Reisman is a lucid and encyclopedic account of capitalism and all things economic.

Also see the works of scholars from the Austrian school of economics, like Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich A. Von Hayek (1974 Nobel in economics), or scholars from the Chicago school of economics, such as Milton Friedman (1976 Nobel in economics) or James Buchanan (1986 Nobel in economics).

A Followup from Greg Perkins

250 comments in a day -- what a wonderful firestorm of discussion!

Now, surely the more harsh commentators understand that in a short piece like my editorial, no author could even try to cover every anticipated objection or outright mistake in reading and reasoning that a minority of the audience might bring. That would simply bore or distract the majority of readers, perhaps to the point of missing the original thesis! I needed to leave such issues for the ensuing discussion.

And boy, I was pleasantly surprised by what happened! A horde of nimble-fing ered Slashdotters quickly jumped in after the first wave of commentary, answering and dissecting almost all of the incoming criticism quite nicely, relieving me of a lot of work -- thanks much, guys! :^)

However, there remain a couple of important themes that my quick-response comrades didn't address, and so I'll try to cover those here -- starting with the most important and surprising one.

What the Hay??

This trend really did surprise me. Here are a handful of examples where it happened -- notice what they have in common when I put them side-by-si de?

• People, it amazes me that some one can equate Linux, a shining example of sharing and cooperation, with capitalism, a system based on hoarding and selfishness. [Rodion Raskolnikov (), "POLL!! POLL!! POLL!!"]
  
  [The] only thing i can assume is that the author had only 1 thing in mind and that was to get people to join his movement. "Well if i can show that capitalism==GNU then fellow GNUers will join my organization or whatever". [Paul (paul@waterw.com), "Propaganda" ;]

  Open source functions on a gift economy. Sure, some of the behavior could be explained with free market principles ... but it is fundamentally different than the sort of role that the original essayist is trying to force it into. When I write code and I give it away, I get nothing but the satisfaction of writing interesting code, and the satisfaction that someone else is using it. That's not capitalism. [Anonymous Coward (), "Re: Back-asswards!"]

  It's always amusing to me to see some ultra captial weenies taking an idea like Open Source, which is effectively as socialistic as you can get in today's society falling all over themselves to cry out that it isn't, that capitalism and open source are exactly the same thing, yammer yammer yammer. [adr (jbfink@nospammy.entropy.muc .muohio.edu), "amusing"]

  Sheesh. Grow up. "Open Source" ... only superficially shares some ideas with economic theory. There's more to living than just money, and there are many more models of economy than just two. [Markus Fleck (!spam-fleck@informatik.uni-bonn.de), "Bla bla bla..."]

What these and so many other lines of criticism share is a clear misundersta nding of my thesis: they somehow latched onto the idea that I am identifying capitalist free markets and the Open Source movement as being the same thing, and then they went running down the rhetorical road on that false premise. Maybe I was not quite clear enough in the original piece, but I trust that if you look back up at my editorial with a little care, you will find that I never make such a claim. I was not even hoping for such an inference. Indeed, the summary in my conclusion seems quite clear about my hopes:

• So if you cheer for the idea of Open Source, then please cheer for what makes Open Source work. If you do that, then you are also cheering for exactly what makes capitalism work... These [common underpinnings] form a kind of systemic encouragement which brings out the very best within us -- and that is precisely what drives the raging success of both Open Source and capitalism.

Of course the Open Source movement and capitalist free markets are not one and the same, and I wouldn't want anyone to think so. My point is that they share a common foundation which fuels their tremendous effectiveness; these common underpinnings are themselves neither Open Source, nor capitalism -- but they foster both, and identifying them allows us to see and better understand the strengths of both Open Source and capitalism. This point leads naturally into my argument that capitalism is not fundamentally at odds with Open Source, a system which shares the same foundational underpinnings -- and so the mistrust and hostility I have been seeing directed at capitalism by some Open Source fans seems misplaced.

Open Source in the Here and Now

An interesting complaint surfaced regarding those underpinnings: some seem to think that it isn't legitimate that I rely on the fact that licenses like the GPL use the ideas of private property and the defense of individual rights, since by some interpretations of the Open Source Founders, its current form of is only accommodating our current circumstances and is not yet the Ideal Deal:

• The GPL exists (in this form) just because we live in a more or less capitalist world. Therefore it is adopted to the needs of this capitalist world. To conclude that because the GPL shows capitalistic elements, Open Source is capitalistic is IMHO an infinite loop. [Sebastian Schaffert (wastl@woanders.de), "Re: amusing", my underline]

  Open source matches the Marxist notion far better that the libertarian-ca pitalist notion, although it matches it only imperfectly. The GPL is very much a legal means of enforcing the kind of relationship that many believe ought to be natural law. It's a loophole, not the core of the philosophy. [vlax (vlax@yahoo.com) , "Sometimes, you just have to laugh", my underline]

But my observation is resting on the actual, stunning success of Open Source in today's world, on today's GPL terms, and in today's political systems -- not in some dreamt-of, hoped-for future place that may be talked about in recommended readings at the FSF. If someone wishes to argue that some other prospective Open Source system might do as well as (or better than) what we have today, then I welcome their giving it a try. But even if someone somehow makes that argument work, it wouldn't itself do anything to disturb my thesis that the powerful and successful Open Source movement we have before us right now shares the very same foundation as capitalism.

There's Cooperation -- and then there's Cooperation

Several people expressed trouble with my saying that "fundamentally, capitalism means cooperation":

• This is one of those motherhood statements that means nothing when you think about it carefully. Consider some alternatives:

  • "fundamentally, communism means cooperation"
  • "fundamentally, anarchism means cooperation"
  • "fundamentally, fascism means cooperation"
  • "acephalous band-level hunter-gatherer groups are fundamentally dependent on cooperation"

  The truth is, human existence pretty much "means cooperation". [Danny Yee (danny@anatomy.usyd.edu.au), "capitalism means cooperation?"]

  I agree entirely with [the] gripe on the assertion "capitalism means cooperation". It is a null statement. What societal system could exist at all without some degree of cooperation. [The Famous Brett Watson (famous@nutters.org), 'Null statement: "capitalism means cooperation"' ]

Certainly there is a lot of cooperation among people in most any societal system. But capitalism, with its explicit ban on fraud and the initiation of force between people for the express purpose of leaving people with nothing but persuasion and freedom of association in their dealings with one another, is quite different. Communism, fascism, socialism, and even our mixed economy, etc., do not consistently demand that we behave as traders, acting to mutual benefit, persuading our neighbor to work with us. Non-capitalist systems legitimatimize the initiation of (often quite naked) force as a common and convenient means of dealing with one another: all you need is to get the political pull or the popular votes to have your way, and others must "cooperate&quo t; -- whether they ultimately benefit or not, and whether they want to or not.

The Slavery of Wages

Okay, one final, tiny point.

• • When someone else makes that choice for you it is called slavery,

• Interesting comment coming from a capitalist.. So when my boss says "do that" I am a slave, eh? You're basically defining capitalism as wage slavery.. not a very good start on an essay that is supposed to defend capitalism. [ir (mattc@nospam.pob ox.com), "Free Software"]

Notice that I said "someone else makes that choice", not just that "something forces your choice". Despite appearances , I was actually being pretty careful about it. When your boss says "do that", you clearly have a choice where a slave does not: you can quit. But you would starve, you say? Not to be too flip about it (well, maybe just a little :^), but it sounds as if your primary complaint of "injustice" is with reality -- not with your boss. He should have freedom of association just as you should, and you have no right to do business with him unless he wants to do business with you (othewise you are not being a trader, and he would be a slave).

I know of no capitalist who would argue that you have a right to be exempt from the laws of reality.

Joe writes "Apparently, a person by the name of Julie is going to be undergoing a sex change operation, live on the internet (From male to female). She believes it will inform, and perhaps even save lives." I guess the good news is that we're probably fairly near to running out of 'firsts' on the 'net. Wonder how longer before we start watching 'lasts'.

Rob Davenport wrote in to tell us that news.com has an article about the next generation of the reigning pda champion. Color, lithium ion battery, more memory, smaller. It's a bit more expensive, but man, color Pilots. Yummy.

Alan Bailward sent us a link to a funny User Friendly. And Joe wrote in to tell us that FoxTrot is doing a series where Jason writes an OS over here. daschel wrote in to send us a link to a site about Bubble Wrap. What a strange world. Angus Davis wrote in to warn us that they've posted lots of interested stuff for mozilla hackers. This includes some docs on the new layout engine and porting instructions. They also need help porting the new engine if anyone is interested. And lastly, just wanted to mention that Everything has swollen to 6600 nodes in around 48 hours. There's some cool stuff in there to read now, and the server is holding up pretty well under somewhat less intensive usage than Wed.

Mooseboy writes "It seems that the people at project unreality have actually gotten mortal combat trilogy to display the introduction! check it out at project unreality. It is windows software, but still it's *cool* " Wouldn't MarioKart 64 be excellent if we could use 4 networked computers to play it? Maybe a working emulator should happen before I start fantasizing about that...

Galen Hancock writes "Now Califonia Democrats are sending out UBE in an effort to get votes. It's a classic case of spam: "targeting", opt-out, and even a rationale: It's political, not commercial. Wonder how many people from out of state will be told who to vote for the California Assembly?" They claim that this isn't spam because they aren't selling anything. I beg to differ. If I get unsolicited email from any candidate, I will refuse to vote for them.

Nickolaus Benjamin writes "A dozen key House Democrats asked Clinton to abandon U.S. export limits on encryption link Also, the Economic Strategy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, issued a report here estimating losses to the U.S. economy due to the encryption export restrictions at roughly $37 billion over the next five years. "

Joe Drew sent us this link to The Economist. He comments "The best line is the first; "IT IS the computer industry equivalent of revealing the recipie for Coca-Cola." Offers some real-world, if slightly unknowledgable insight into the source release."

Nicholas Murphy wrote in to tell us that Builder.com's big Linux experiment has recieved something of an update. Dan talks about his preconceptions with Linux, and even mentions Slashdot! Interesting stuff and I hope he's successful.

Ben Kosse writes "First, I am gathering "signatures" of people who would like to protest keeping I2O under NDA. Yes, there are already systems running I2O out there on the market (or there are at least advertisers saying their systems are running I2O). If you would like your name on the list, mail bkosse@bigfoot.com with your name, e-mail address (I promise I won't use your addresses for anything other than this protest), and up to 50 words of information. If you would like to write another "Cathedral and the Bazzar," make it a seperate message, and if I think it's good enough, I'll attach it to the protest. Secondly, if someone would like to make a logo to distribute to people, I would greatly appreciate it, as I have no artistic ability. I was thinking something along the lines of "Incompatible 2 Open" or similar. If you make a logo, mail me the WEB PAGE where I can look at it."

Ben Kosse writes "First, I am gathering "signatures" of people who would like to protest keeping I2O under NDA. Yes, there are already systems running I2O out there on the market (or there are at least advertisers saying their systems are running I2O). If you would like your name on the list, mail bkosse@bigfoot.com with your name, e-mail address (I promise I won't use your addresses for anything other than this protest), and up to 50 words of information. If you would like to write another "Cathedral and the Bazzar," make it a seperate message, and if I think it's good enough, I'll attach it to the protest. Secondly, if someone would like to make a logo to distribute to people, I would greatly appreciate it, as I have no artistic ability. I was thinking something along the lines of "Incompatible 2 Open" or similar. If you make a logo, mail me the WEB PAGE where I can look at it."

Greg Johnson writes "Here is a link which talks about the Micro$soft monolopy and the price of 'bucking the system'. It mentions Linux, OS/2 and even BeOS. Nonething really new but it does seem to be a good summary."

First off, James Carter writes "Netscape's new site for coordination and support of the sources of it's browser (mozilla.org) mentions linux as one of first three source targets along with 95/NT and Mac PPC. Another boost for linux's emergence as one of the top platforms. Further, an unsurprising acknowledgement that the linux community will provide a fair number of developers." James also sent This Link. And speaking of Linkage, our Second mozilla.org link today is the library of links related to Mozilla's source. The short list includes The Cathedraal and the Bazaar, Netscape's Press Release, and Slashdot. I'm tickled. Thanks to Joe Drew for letting me know.

Kyle Geddes (Who obviously has to much spare time on his hands :) sent us this link to a sort of press release announcing a lawsuit. It's pretty funny in light of the article I posted an hour ago about the lawsuit over multithreading.

andrew sent us this link to news.com where you can readabout Microsoft and the 11 states that have subpeona'd her with regards to Windows 98.

Galen Hancock wrote in to give us this story about the recent Microsoft Allegations that the judge was biased in their case. Basically it looks like their evidence was basically an email. Interesting.

Kyle Geddes wrote in to let us know that Apple turned a profit last quarter. I guess that new years resolution that none of you chose a few weeks back may come true anyway. Steve "Egoman" Jobs is quoted as saying "Returning Apple to sustainable profitability is the company's No. 1 objective for fiscal 1998, and we believe we're making great progress toward that goal". It's about time. Read this infobeat story for more.

Kyle Geddes writes in with another great example of how technology is making our lives better. Kyle writes "The city of Los Angeles wants to help find Fido by implanting a microchip under its skin. It will do the same thing for your cat. In a city housing the world's best-known pet cemetery, the council added a new service for animal lovers Wednesday. The council approved a pilot scheme to implant tiny identification microchips to be placed between the shoulders of a cat or dog adopted from one of the city's pet shelters. The city will recover the cost of the chips by raising shelter adoption fees from $74 to $89 for dogs and from $50 to $65 for cats. See InfoBeat for the full story." Now if I only could get those things implanted in people I don't like so I can figure out where I don't want to be.

So the best movie news site on the web, Harry Knowles Aint-It-Cool-News is now under attack. Apparently people in Hollywood are getting sick of his amazing spy network spilling the beans on their bazillion dollar productions. My take is that maybe they'll be forced to make good movies now since a commercial doesn't fool harry, but a good Ad Campaign could still get a bomb to net a few million dollars. Check out this article sent to us by Galen Hancock