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."

Comments

Bad and good.

[shaka]

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.

Re:Bad and good.

[Khazunga]

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.

Untrue. Or at least, incomplete. While there certainly are many hobbyists writing code in their spare time, a quick glance at major open-source projects will find commercial company support.

Open-source allows for small companies to enter fields held by large corporations up until now. Open source development lowers the software entry barrier, for corporations as well as individuals.

Example: Imagine a small company who realizes they need to develop a J2EE application server because of an esoteric requirement. Before open source, the cost would be prohibitive. Nowadays, they'll probably join some project like JBoss, and add the features they particularly need.

Companies also have itches, and also scratch them.

Re:Bad and good.

[Raphael]

Most (but not all) Open Source and Free Software programmers are writing code for fun, or for various other reasons that are not directly business-related.

But some of them are employed by RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and other distributions, or by companies like VA Linux or Ximian and they do care for the business side of things. They are the ones who make sure that all pieces of the GNU/Linux/X puzzle fit together and that all applications can be used by the "average user".

Already out-of-date statement:

[hardaker]

• 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?

Re:decent alternative

[bockman]

To declare Linux as a decent alternative or not, you need to know for what its usage is proposed.

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.

Re:decent alternative

[ichimunki]

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.

Re:An argument I don't understand

[ChaosDiscordSimple]

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.