Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft vs. Ximian
Kappelmeister writes "The open source movement gets some great mainstream press today as the Washington Post reports tht Ximian's Volunteer 'Army' Fights Microsoft on Open-Source Code. It mentions Linux progress in the server market, Shared Source, and how both sides are courting Mexican President Vincente Fox for use in his 'eMexico' initiative to get 98 percent of the population online. Best of all, though, it tells a lot of people that there is a decent alternative to Microsoft software."
Firstly, I would like to state that I think it's great to see this kind of articles in the mainstream press, as it shows people that there are alternatives, and the only thing they hear about open source and free software is the FUD that MS is spreading.
That said, I come to the bad side. I'm pretty tired of reading all of this mumbo-jumbo about open source as business, or as a threat to business, or whatever. I can understand why journalists like to write about it, and I think that parts of the open source community is responsible for this too.
But still - face it: Open source and free software is hobbyists writing code for their own well-being, because they (we) think it's fun, and/or because we need the software, and feels good about letting other people use and change said software too.
By doing this, you have no strings attached. All the companies in the world - and the journalists - can say and write whatever they want, but the fact is that nobody has to care.
Stop talking business all the time. The programmers don't care about business. We care about code.
:wq!
- Microsoft's entire, $25 billion-a-year business is based on the idea that software can be owned and sold and that the source code - the blueprints, instructions or secret formulas - are proprietary.
The author forgot to include "or rented". You know, with micropayments becoming more of a viable buisness model, I could see Bill wanting to charge you for every second that you're using his software. It'd add up the time, and send the summary to MS HQ when you connect to the internet the next time (or would stop working if 30 days had elapsed since the last time you connected to the internet). Got screwed?The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
Not that I'm a fan of microsoft but what kind of society is the do some of the open source companies suggest really? That a few companies makes loads of cash of free labour while the rest of the population works for free?
Monopolies are bad, but are Miguels alternative much better?
I feel that current distributions are not easy enough to configure to be a good alternative to a windows desktop. That is the major bad point.
However, configuration is not an issue for enterprise deployments, or any other kind of mass deployment. Here Linux is actually easier on administrators, and I think is ready for usage.
We have seen major advances in desktops (both KDE and Gnome are to congratulate on this), and major advances in Office suites. I don't believe there's a problem here, even if Office suites are not par with MS.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
"They've been leasing it to us on day one."
I know that they've been doing that for quite a while, but from day one? How was MS-DOS licensed? How about Microsoft Basic for the Atari 800? (I'm sure there are even earlier MS products people could cite as examples). I'm asking because I'm curious, not that I'm contesting the general validity of your statement.
I recall reading in some biography of Gatse/MS (shit, there's a Freudian slip for ya, I'll leave it in) that claimed that the key idea they hit upon was how to get people to pay for a little piece of magnetic media with some bits on it -- something no one had really built a business on before. Looking at things from that perspective, you can see that Gatse.MS is fundamentally inimical to Open Source, and that they will never, ever "get it", even if they don't adopt it.
The reason that techs are overworked is because they have removed all chance of responsibility from the users. Why not say, "Well, read the man pages," or "Have you looked for your problem online" instead of "Don't touch it, you'll only break it."
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
From the little written in the article, this Mexican government plan is to enable most of mexicans to 'be on line'.
Now, you possibly don't need neither MS office nor Outlook for this. You need an user-friendly desktop, a good browser (plugins are not a must, especially if average bandwidth will not allow to enjoy them), an easy to use (and virus-resistant) e-mailer, non-sofisticated graphic and editing programs.
Now, my assessment(YMMV) is that a Linux desktop satisfies a 95% of these requirements (improvements may be needed on desktop usability and web browser ).
A strong issue for Linux in non-US government, apart from cost issue, is that with open-source most of the money spent on software stays in-country : they could even pay some local developer and sysadmin to build an ad-hoc distribution, if they don't like the available ones.
If they listen to ximian, I hope that also non-ximian software get a chance to be used, however.
Ciao
----
FB
I dunno. Somehow *I* made it through school when all we had was PETs and Apple IIs. The school itself ran a lot of stuff through a mainframe (that I don't think had a single MS product on it). The quality of education here in Minnesota has NOT improved considerably with the advent of iMac filled labs and school offices running MS Windows and Office.
In fact, not more than a couple of years ago, with all this mandatory testing crap, there was a big hoohah because the computers involved screwed up the scoring!
The solution? Keep it simple. Don't change stuff that ain't broken. Implement change slowly and deliberately-- not because some Silicon Valley Marketeer dazzled you with a totally contrived demo. Every cent that is wasted on expensive technology is money that couldn't be used to hire competent teachers-- and teaching children is a LOT more than guiding them through point and click exercises on some candy colored computer.
I do not have a signature
The Free Software Foundation has recently started to promote the idea that all software should be free.
Recently? This has been the goal of the Free Software Foundation since the beginning. They feel that non-free software is immoral. Thus is naturally follows that all software should be free.
By stating that "all software must be free, no matter who developed it," I believe that the FSF is shooting itself in the foot. By crippling itself with such extremism, the FSF takes away opportunities to convince people that by having a choice, they can make the choice to improve their futures by choosing free software. The FSF political tendencies seem to be closer to dictatorship rather than the common attack of communism. Even if a dictatorship is benevolent, it is still a dictatorship.
I see advertisments almost daily telling me that I should only use Microsoft software, I should only drive Ford cars. Yet I don't feel the need to accuse Microsoft and Ford of being extremist. Oracle wants you to exclusively use Oracle databases. The FSF wants you to exclusively use Free Software. Both are attempting to change your behavoir. Don't demonize the FSF for behavoir every software company engages in.
In addition, the FSF is arguing from a moral position. If you agree that non-Free Software is immoral (a big If, I'll agree), there can be no-compromise. You might as well ask pro-life proponents to admit that abortions are a reasonable option. While you're at it, maybe Christians would be interested in accepting Islam as a valid choice. The FSF follows their beliefs as closely as they can. It would be hypocritical to do otherwise.
Preaching the word of freedom while advocating the removal of freedoms is counterproductive.
The FSF is not, to my knowledge, lobbying for laws to force all software to be free. They're simply trying to convince everyone that Free Software is the only morally acceptable answer. No removal of your freedom there, just simple persuasion.
Nothing in the GPL "takes away that feedom" from you. From the GPL FAQ:
Seems like a reasonable trade-off for the right to use the (unmodified) source in the first place, no?
What's disturbing is that not only you (if sincere) are buying into that FUD, but so is the Washington Post article (the following is so misconstrued it sounds almost like Craig Mundie):
as well as another one two days ago (from a widely read French daily that should know better):
That's just not true.
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes