Slashdot Mirror
MS Wants To Outlaw Open Source: "Threatens" the "American Way"
EnderWiggnz was one of the people who wrote to us about some interesting quotes from Jim Allchin, main Windows guy at Microsoft. Essentially he argues that Open Source undermines intellectual property (which is true) but that it also stifles innovation and he "...can't imagine something that could be worse then this for the software business and intellectual-property business." My favorite quote:"I'm an American, I believe in the American Way,'' he said. ''I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough education of policy makers to understand the threat." Wow. I know - let's blame Canada! That seems a logical next step!
Tip for y'all: It's time to do something!!!
1) Start giving money to the EFF, the EPIC, the FSF, et al. very fast.
2) There are people who are supposed to condemn these kind of statements - they're called Congress. They're supposed to launch investigations into this kind of shit. If nothing else, they're supposed to know that millions of people will be royally pissed off if they vote for anti-Open Source legistlation. Here are all the email addresses for the Senate Tech Committee:
John McCain john_mccain@mccain.senate.gov
Ted Stevens http://www.senate.gov/~stevens/webform.htm
Conrad Burns conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov
Trent Lott senatorlott@lott.senate.gov
Kay Hutchinson senator@hutchinson.senate.gov
Olympia Snowe olympia@snowe.senate.gov
Same Brownback http://www.senate.gov/~brownback/email.html
Gordon Smith http://www.senate.gov/~gsmith/webform.htm
Peter Fitzgerald senator_fitzgerald@fitzgerald.senate.gov
Frizt Hollings http://www.senate.gov/~hollings/webform.html
Daniel Inoyue http://www.senate.gov/~inouye/abtform.html
Jay Rockefeller senator@rockefeller.senate.gov
John Kerry john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov
John Breaux http://www.senate.gov/~breaux/webform.html
Bryon Dorgan http://dorgan.senate.gov/webmail.html
Ron Wyden http://www.senate.gov/~wyden/mail.htm
Max Cleland http://cleland.senate.gov/~cleland/webform.html
Barbara Boxer http://www.senate.gov/~boxer/contact/webform.html
Jean Carnhan senator_carnahan@carnahan.senate.gov
According to this article at The Register:m l
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16933.ht
Windows XP will itself destroy protected audio and video files that do not "authenticate" with the sound and/or video cards.
Take Allchin's statement, alter it to this:
"I'm a Corporatist, I believe in the Corporate Way,'' he said. 'I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough education of policy makers to understand the threat."
Without Free and Open Source Software, there is no counter to the power of the corporations to control the computer the way they now control TV, radio (about to get even tighter in the digital age), newspapers, etc.
Microsoft's attitudes and despotism in forcing `Doze users to accept that level of unrestricted third control over their own property, will only serve to further our cause.
I never did upgrade to 2000, though I do have a dual boot Red Hat/Doze ME machine for gaming. I certainly will never allow Windows XP (XP which seems to stand for "corporate control eXPeriment") anywhere near any of my machines, especially now that I have broadband.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
If this happens, there is no money to pay programmers. As a result, intelligent people such as myself, who could command 6 figure salaries in any profession will take different career paths.
With fewer programmers, the result will be less innovation and worse software.
Furthermore, universities, etc. won't be able to afford to run computing courses,
Hooey, all of it. If indeed you were an intelligent person perhaps you'd have a better grasp of service based economies.
This is really simplifying it, but.
There is $(x) amount in the pool, and a fixed demand. In the current system, where one purchases a software product, there is $(x-y) actually going to the programmers, where y is dictated by the amount of profit the software companies make.
Now in an open model, where the software is free and customizable but there is no support, there is still $(x) and the same number of 'sales', but that $(x) is paid directly to the programmers, support techs, etc, by way of salary. In addition, there is a higher demand for said programmers.
.sig: Now legally binding!
I like this quote:
Microsoft distributes some of its programs without charge to customers
Yeah, and exactly WHEN did it start doing that? Did they distribute any significant software for free before Netscape?
Even the development tools where a pain in the ass to get your hands on before then, like the DDK for which you needed to be an MSDN subscriber to get it.
Breace.
Look, I know this is a troll, but it's always good to have a straw man to crush:
The ultimate goal of Open Source is free software. Now this means that you don't pay anything for it.
This is but one of the freedoms that Free Software (not Open Source) brings. However, many people in this world, myself included, are delighted to pay for software even when it's free. It's called 'morality', and if an author would like a gift in exchange for his dedication, I'm happy to offer one. The greater good in this scenario is not that the individual programmer is richer, but that the whole community is enriched by the new, free software.
If this happens, there is no money to pay programmers. As a result, intelligent people such as myself, who could command 6 figure salaries in any profession will take different career paths.
That's utter tosh. Yes, I know you're a troll. However, innovative companies such as Cygnus Solutions make large profits and employ full time programmers simply to work on free software! The software is costly to initially create and maintain, but once a single copy exists, every other copy is free. Companies like Microsoft are backwards! They charge nothing to their customers for the expense of creation and maintainence, but charge full whack for the part that's completely free - making copies! Why should it cost more to have 1000 licenses of NT workstation than to have 10? It's exactly the same software on each workstation, duplicated at zero cost.
Finally, you might want to look at this essay on motivation. I personally expect to get paid for working on proprietary customer solutions at work, but all the programming I do outside work is for Free, in all senses of the word. By doing that, I'm adding value to the software community. I also think it's fair, given how much I rely on other Free programs.
Furthermore, the evidence is that open source does not tend to produce new innovation. For example, desktops such as KDE are based on older products from Apple and MS. When open source is the only thing remaining, innovation will obviously be reduced.
Yes, I know this is still a troll, but currently with things like GNOME, most of the innovation is in the programming APIs and code implementations - the actual user interface is neglected, programmers are just happy to leave it looking like existing interfaces because they're not UI experts, and they at least want the user to be instantly familiar, even if they do just steal layouts (such as M$ does heavily, eg Start button vs Apple menu). Personally, if I were to come up an innovative compression method, the user would not care. All he would care is that my program had the same user interface as zip, otherwise he'd say "it compresses much better, but it's a bitch to use!"
Does my bum look big in this?
I've always thought that one of the best things that could happen for Linux and other open-source efforts is if the government, in the name of being better stewards of taxpayers money, moved toward open-source solutions. For one thing, we could have real tests of how Linux does on the desktop on a wide scale. Another benefit would be that government-funded software development could be immediately open-sourced, and developers would get paid (government contracts) to make open-source software.
Microsoft is directly threating to convince lawmakers that open-source is un-American, against business interests, and should not be trusted. I doubt they can pass laws against open-source programs, but they may convince lawmakers to create laws that limit open-source penetration in government, schools, etc.
As we've learned with other battles, Being Right often looses to Having Lots Of Money To Buy The Ears Of Courts And Congress
Home of the Free(tm).
We invented freedom, and we copyrighted it. You may license it for a small (enormous) fee.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
I love that quote: "I don't think we've done enough education of policy makers to understand the threat."
Why do I picture an MS executive alone in the office of some commitee chairman, with checkbook in hand, saying "How much education do you think you'll need to outlaw open source software?" To which the Congressman replied, "I think 15 million credit hours will do nicely".
Hemos: Great Strangelove reference.
-B
Q: Are you now, or were you ever a member of the FSF?
A: no
Q: Are you now or have you ever written free software?
A: yes, I wrote several apache modules used by the senate's web server.
Q: oh, well, I , er...
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Essentially he argues that Open Source undermines intellectual property (which is true) but that it also stifles innovation
How can people possibly take this seriously? Scientists have been relying on others' work all along, "standing on the shoulders of giants" in order to make the next innovative step. Having to reinvent the wheel to think up a car is just plain stupid. So why can he get away with claiming that the inverse is true for software?
'Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer,'' Allchin said.
This, again, is rubbish. Perhaps it takes away the ability to make money in specific areas (who would pay for a proprietary 'ls'?), but that it a really good thing for innovation. It means that software companies have to invent new things (oh the horror) if they want to remain profitable, instead of hocking the same old stuff over and over.
Microsoft provides support to change and develop products based on its operating system software that Linux companies don't, he said.
Hmmm. Sounds like the journalist got Windows and Linux confused. It's Linux that is available to modify and base products on.
On a side note, are there any arguments against Free software that are actually more specific than "stifles innovation"?
I know the truth. Taco wrote this story and had Hemos post it to the front page. The proof is overwhelming:
Linux is developed in a so-called open-source environment in which the software code generally isn't owned by any one company. That, as well as programs such as music-sharing software from Napster Inc., means the world's largest software maker has to do a better job of talking to policymakers, he said.
There's only 1 person on earth who writes such painfully incoherent prose and his name is Rob Malda.
Linux is the most widely known open-source product, though other programs including the popular Apache system for Web server computers also are developed the same way.
Read this sentence. Then read it again. Either the author learned english as a second language or his name is CmdrTaco.
Allchin said he's concerned that the open-source business model could stifle initiative in the computer industry.
Anyone who's spent more than 3 minutes listening to a Microsoft employee knows that "innovation" is their favorite word, but here's Jim Allchin apparently saying "initiative" instead. Only Taco could make such an error.
He's also a leader in a project develop an open-source file and printer server program.
Leaving out "to", that's vintage Malda.
Linux is the fastest-growing operating system program for running server computers, according to research firm IDC.
Normal, non-Malda writers would have phrased it as "According to IDG, Linux is the fastest growing server operation system."
Give it up Rob, we're on to your game.
--Kara
--Kara
Before you ask, I already have a boyfriend and he's more of a man than you'll ever be.
You sure do go a long way in painting all corporations as being evil. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the US, with it's many large corporations also has one of the highest stardards of living on the planet. I don't know too many other countries where people are literally killing themselves to try to get into.
Yea, corps aren't all bad, but I would argue that the US standard of living is pitiful. We have a very high murder rate, 25% of the worlds incarceration, the worst education system, 60% obesity, and a slew of mental disorders. Heck, I can't even go out for a walk in the summer with a beer in my hand where I live.
We have a very high standard of stuff which jives well with the corps. However, I think we could pay a little more attention to life outside of furnishing the house and eating McDonalds, being the fat, murderous, uneducated, and restricted people we are.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to come up with good content for this letter. What we don't want to say is that our government should be dumping closed-source technologies for open-source ones just because they're open-source. That would just make us look like fanatics, and even if they did listen to us, it would make open-source look bad if the migration were to fail. For instance, suggesting that a secretary replace his Windows desktop running Office 2000 with a Linux desktop running Star Office is foolish.
So what we need to do is come up with reasonings that make sense. I think we need to "educate" our government that assuming everything else is equal, an open-source solution is superior to a closed-source one.
So we need to enlighten with truths and (more importantly) debunk myths. Here's a list to get started:
- The idea that you can hold a company responsible in case something goes wrong with your software is a myth. If your Windows server crashes, you'll need to hire someone to fix it. Microsoft won't be any real help, and you'll never get a refund from them any way.
- The licensing fees for closed-source products do nothing but make the product more expense the more you use it. Let's say you hire another 100 employees. If the organization were using Windows, you'd have to pay for another 100 Windows licenses. It wouldn't cost you a dime if they were Linux desktops. You'd still be paying the IT staff to install the systems, regardless of the OS.
- Open-source technologies give the end-user control of his resources. If something breaks, you don't need to rely on an outside party to fix it.
This list is just a start. I'm hoping the--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
It will be the downfall of civilization (or atleast of some very large multinationals) - and free software is bringing the idea of content freedom to everybody. That's why microsoft, RIAA, MPAA and all the others are fighting with everything they have to suppress the *idea* of free content.
I predict a long, hard fight..
-henrik
When is the last time you got any support from M$?
About 3 or 4 years ago, when I was playing around with Visual C++ 4 and had a question that wasn't answered in the FAQ, docs, etc. So I call up the support number. They tell me (after a bunch of wading thought phone systems and waiting on hold) that I should call the non-1800 number. OK I figured, why not, a quick call may cost a couple of buck, but it'll answer my question, so why not.
So I waded through more phone systems, and waited on hold some more. When I finally got to talk to a real person, they asked me all sorts of information. Name, address, phone number, zip/postal code, version, place of purchase, etc etc. Finally I got around to telling her my serial number.
"Sir, this serial number is registered to a canadian location."
"Yes" (I had given my location when she asked for it, as "BC Canada", and a Postal code not a zip code.
"... and it also appears to be an educational version"
"Yes" (I had given my place of purchase as University College of the Fraser Valley, and I don't think you can get more educational than that).
"Well, you'll have to call [random non-toll free number] in Ottawa to get support for this product."
By this time I had randomly clicked around and figured the answer to this question, and hung up in discust.
And *that* is the last time I got "support" from MS. I guess you can get support for Linux by paying other people for it, OR you can get support from MS and pay them for it. Last I heard "real" incidents of MS support are charged $100/$200 or so to get support.
Oh, like Amish barn raisings should be declared illegal because they threaten the innovation of contractors across our great land.
At least his comments tell us one thing: Microsoft's on the run and they don't have a clue about how to deal with open source.
'We can build a better product than Linux,'' he [Allchin] said.
:P
So... why don't they?
Three dits, four dits, two dits, dah!
Radio, radio, rah rah rah!
he "...can't imagine something that could be worse then this for the software business and intellectual-property business."
how about monopolies?
the animal doesnt even have opposable thumbs, focker!
The right to profit is part of the American spirit. It is the guarantee to profit that is not.
Edward Burr
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
Time and time again, I'm reminded of Asimov's Galactic Library. And if you aren't familiar with his works, that was a storehouse of all human knowledge stockpiled and hidden in lieu of dark ages that would last for a thousand years.
In a way we have our own Galactic Library. It's composed of every useful idea ever created whose details can be recalled with enough precision to reproduce that idea. These ideas, information, properties;however you want to phrase the concept, are valuable. Good ideas allow things to get done and problems to be solved. Some ideas can chnage the direction of the entire human race. Steam, electricity, semiconductors, transportation, and countless others.
Each technological revolution stands on the shoulders of the last. Each generation building upon the available ideas of their time. We stand on the shoulders of giants as we sit here typing away our impassioned thoughts on slashdot. Many us doing so from an environment that is nearly 100% free in it's origins and implementation and distribution. It feels good to know that one can rely on himself to do certain tasks without having to worry about playing by someone elses rules or having to use someone elses property. To operate in an environment owned by someone else is to lose the ability to work or play without inhibition and inhibition is a mild term considering most proprietary software licenses are over 20 pages now.
Our giants we once assumed made from bedrock, are being chipped away by theives who view the spectrum of long established ideas as some sort of territory that can mapped out and claimed as if the past and unnamed innovators could somehow be erased and forgotten becasue they don't have a piece paper in the patent database.
They know and we know it's all just a bunch of bullshit but they move forward every day, taking a piece here and a piece there.
I am not a great fan of Microsoft or its products, but I am not, nor have I ever been an implacable enemy of them. I'm sure there are people at MS who read Slashdot, especially when the articles are about them, and it is to them that I write this, although it applies to a boarder audience.
To put my point bluntly, Microsoft was the target of antitrust prosecution precisely because it was an enormously successful company. Regardless of whether you agree with MS's tactics, it has bought out or buried an impressive list of rivals over the past two decades.
When a company stops trying to beat its rivals in the marketplace and seeks legal protection, that is the beginning of the end. Perhaps legislating away competition can protect it in a few markets. But laws are either meaningless, or they limit our freedom, as individuals or corporations. Outlawing open source when so many people are already writing it and using it would clearly fall into the category of limiting freedom. The competition will move out of the jurisdictions in which it is outlawed, but it will not die. And the protected company will grow complacent and weak.
I use both open source and Microsoft products in different settings. I think that at this point in the game both sides are strengthened by the challenge of competition. Each side has an incentive to try to hone its strengths to stave off attacks and to attempt to best the strengths of the other side.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.