Slashdot Mirror
Tim O'Reilly Bashes Open Source Efforts in Govt
There's a tremendous difference between what government should be allowed to do and what individuals should be allowed to do. O'Reilly is attempting to blur the distinction, a common rhetorical tactic but one which does not advance his argument. As far as I can tell, his only argument besides this is that if the citizenry pushes for the government to use Free software, companies will push back to use proprietary crud. This argument doesn't hold water - every company selling proprietary software is lobbying the government all the time, have been for years, and they aren't going to stop just because we do. CNet carries news today that Microsoft has pressured the NSA to drop development of Security-Enhanced Linux. I can only imagine what sort of pressures might have been brought to bear behind the scenes, perhaps Microsoft threatened to cancel the NSA's site licenses of Windows and Microsoft Office. But in any case, there's no such thing as "mutual disarmament" - if we back down we'll just get smashed by the continuing efforts of companies pushing proprietary software.
But back to the government/individual distinction. Individuals, for instance, shouldn't be required to disclose their private papers to anyone who asks. But government should: that's the foundation of our freedom of information laws, and they exist for a good reason - keeping an eye on government is a necessary thing. Saying "People should be free to keep their papers private" as an argument against government FOI laws is just a stupid strawman, unworthy of further debate. And that's what O'Reilly's argument against California's proposed law is as well.
Governments play by different rules. They need to be fiscally responsible, transparent to the public, and promote the public commonwealth whenever possible. Using Open Source or Free Software in government promotes all three of these goals, and if Microsoft or any other corporation doesn't make quite as much money when the government alters its standards for software procurement... so what? Companies who make shoddy products do lose business when the government ups its standards, and they have the same choice as any business does: either produce better products, or lose the government's business. In this case the shoddiness comes in some of the most important areas as far as software goes: open access to the code, to ensure the software that we the citizenry pay for is doing what it is supposed to be doing, but the rationale would be the same if the government mandated a certain level of bug-free-ness or a certain level of performance for software - you can shape up and continue selling to the government or you can ship out. Your choice.
O'Reilly seems to be promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign. He's a business man; perhaps there's a reason we don't know about. But whatever his motives, his lame arguments are no reason to stop pushing for governments to use Free or Open Source software wherever possible.
Except this way we end up with a mess of threads will different parent "replies" rather than a single neat thread for interested parties to follow. Suddenly, a majority of the discussion is about Michael's POV rather than O'Reilly's (more deserving, IMO) article.
Really, there's no good reason for Michael to make his observations in the actual story unless he (a) can't post in the forum to to some policy or (b) he is trying to place himself above the fray, were he'll be more sure of being read. immune to moderation and free from any cohesive replies (and, incidently, from having to defend his statement).
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Really, there's no good reason for Michael to make his observations in the actual story unless he (a) can't post in the forum to to some policy or (b) he is trying to place himself above the fray, were he'll be more sure of being read. immune to moderation and free from any cohesive replies (and, incidently, from having to defend his statement).
/. editor behavior by stating that he thinks he's always done the right thing. I'm sure he also thinks his opinion -deserves- to be in it's higher, unmoderatable a nd unassailable position. He knows as well as I that were he to put his accusations in the comments section they'd be (-1, Troll) in about 3 seconds.
Ah, there's the rub. He is, in fact, placing himself above us. This is the same guy who defends the opaqueness of
Seriously, after Sengan, Michael is the moderator who pisses me off the most. What a cockmonger.
The enemies of Democracy are
Offtopic.....Its what half of this thread is talking about right now.
I have never been with a donkey...although we do have lots of camels here. Um, forget I said that.
No need for any conspiracy theory -- the policy of mass editor moderation was freely admitted in regards to the "post of doom" thread several months back. (Though admittedly, those posts were at least offtopic, while posts directly commenting on michael's essay certainly are not.) Expect to see quite a few more people complaining of being $rtbl'd soon.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
No, you're thinking of this article from late 1998 by Sengan.
There should be some comments in the article, as you can read CmdrTaco talking about re-enabling comments. Perhaps when the original static .shtml files the articles and comments were archived in were parsed, the comments in this one were missed. There's also another, unrelated article that came after this into which people first started posting comments of protest. I can't seem to find it, however.
You're thinking of Sengan, who posted this a little before my time:
US and UK unilaterally attack Iraq
As I type this, the +5s are highly anti-Michael; I can't really add anything to them.
(Wow, this could be my very first down-mod ever! I'm so excited!)
..!!in an intastella burst i am back to save the universe!!