Slashdot Mirror
How IBM (and Open Source) Won eBay
DemonBrew wrote to us with a new article in Business2 how IBM beat MSFT, Sun, BEA Systems to win the contract for the new eBay. Cool part is that it's based on Websphere, which has major open source components.
Blockquoth the responder:
Ah, now we're getting into philosophy. Here's a hypothetical for you: One day, you look up and see your worst enemy, whom you hate. He is backing over a cliff . . . in your brand-new Porsche. Do you shout a warning to him or not?
If you fail to warn him, most people would agree that you acted evilly. But even if you do warn him, it's still not clearly "good." Did you warn him because that is the right thing to do? Or did you warn him because you didn't want to lose your Porsche? Or maybe you warned him to preserve yourself from legal liability? Is it the action that counts, or the motivation, or a combination thereof? To my mind, action is more important than motivation.
Corporations -- not just Ebay, but all corporations -- perform actions that effect individuals, both those who are employed by the corporation, the investors, the customers, business partners, and sometimes the general public. I contend that corporations can be judged by their actions, every bit as much as any other human organization can be judged by theirs. I speak not merely of legal liability, but moral accountability as well.
Microsoft is a prime example. (Honestly, I am not trying to troll here, nor am I trying to make flamebait. Just bear with me.) Microsoft is extremely good at making good business decisions -- actions whose effect are to increase its market share, its bottom line, and its dominance in the industry. Some of those actions have had negative impact on others, both individuals and companies. The decisions that Microsoft has made regarding their course of action made the "most business sense." Does that absolve them of moral responsibility for the negative consequences of their actions?
As for open source, I would argue that it is morally superior to proprietary source. Open source code promotes the spread of knowledge; because anyone can view the source code, anyone can study real-world examples in order to learn about programming, or even for curiousity's sake. Proprietary technologies seek to restrict the spread of knowledge: figuring out how a closed program works is a thousand times more difficult, and may also be illegal. Which is better -- widespread knowledge, or widespread ignorance?
If open source software is morally superior to proprietary software, then logically embracing an open solution is an action which redounds to the credit of any company which does so. Their motivation for picking the software, be it because of "good business sense," because of approval of open source on general principles, or even because the CEO had indigestion and chose based on which representative had an antacid, is irrelevant. Consequences are derived from action, not motivation for that action.
You are right to point out that the concepts of "good" and "evil" are too narrow to be particularly useful in this context. Nothing human can be fully "good" or "evil." As a child, Saint Augustine stole a crop of pears, destroyed them, and felt guilty about it for most of his adult life. Hitler loved his dogs, trite but true.
Humans are complex, and may be good in some ways but not in others. Corporations are human institutions, and in exactly the same way they have both negative and positive aspects. Deciding what actions you approve or disapprove of in a corporation can help you establish how you, as an individual, will interact with any given corporation, but is basically a subjective decision.
Whew! That was a mouthful. But I think it needed to be said. If I get modded down for it, so be it.