Slashdot Mirror
Software Libre: DoHS Switches, Commerce Slights
An anonymous reader writes "Some excellent Pigdog investigative journalism: Apparently, The state department is trying to block international support of OSS and Free (Libre) Software. See also this InfoWorld article." Contrast that with this NewsForge report of a switch from Windows 2000 to Linux+Oracle at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. They picked a good week for it.
The free world won the cold war because an open society is more efficient than a closed one.
Free software will win on the same basis. Sure, the US is open compared to most of the countries in the world, but it's not as open as open source.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The same government that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and turned a monopoly breakup into a mime of a wrist slap fights the good fight to make sure that software that isn't being licensed by the major party contributor is on superior footing against "free" "better" software. Why is anyone acting surprised?
Open source technology - there really is no way to ensure that the third world would get second rate technology using free software, and where will the NSA put all their back door
Just remember folks, when such a smaal change is considered important, it usually means $$$ is a stake. As in:
The use of free software is supported : you can get $$$ if you use the stuff.
The use of free software is encouraged : you can get kudos if you use it.
That being said, I think the author of the original article smoked a bit too much of all the shit he could get on that beach.
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
No they used to sell good coffee, but as they grew in size, the quality of the coffee went down. Kinda Like McDonald's :)
All Microsoft software is an export of the US this brings trade $ to the US and profit, employment and tax dollars to the the US. Manufacturing costs are minimal. The US State Department has a mandate to support exports of American products.
Internally the US government is mandated to support national development and minimize costs. This is best done through an open source solution system and the development and support of many independent local service companies. See the Peru OSS document.
Thus we have the two faces of government:
1) attempting to get other nations to buy overpriced, over hyped expensive american products
2) attempting internally to minimize costs and local development
Should one be suprised that other governments are also attempting 2. No. But the best thing to do is to pressure them to do 1 and send those $ to the US.
Eluding tariffs
We can see the same thing elsewhere, with copyright, the DMCA, softwood tarrifs(designed to increase logging profits in the US which is faced with Canadian competition) and the like.
The essence of mercantilism is to reward your cronies with government favors (corporate welfare, monopolies, tax breaks) while harming their competitors, and anyone else who happens to get in their way.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that Microsoft has secured its position as a beneficiary of "honest graft"
I mean, I hope no one thinks it was in the interests of justice that they got a slap on the wrist in the anti-trust case.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
The apparent bias of an author changes neither the seriousness nor the importance of an article. Often, the most telling evidence is reported in the most biased journals.
/. . However, some of this conversation will impact someone, somewhere, probably without either of us ever knowing.
This is the face of new journalism: everyone is a journalist. The most important effect of the internet is also one of the most subtle. You and I are communicating, in a rather disjointed way; moreover, we are communicating in public. This elevates our words beyond mere conversation.
Since 99% of everything is crap (used to be 90% before the internet), most of our public conversation will amount to nothing but an archive on
So, this "report" is still important (in a minor sort of way), even without the sterling stamp of unbiased reporting. Hell, it's nothing more than a blog entry. It serves at least on major purpose: it helps us realize we are not alone, that there are others who feel and think some of the things we feel and think. This alone is worth the time cost of reading it. The fact it is entertaining helps.
Anyway, I'd rather see blatant bias than the subtle bias most respected news sources employ -- the small censorships, the subjective language disguised as objective, the stern seriousness with which they present the most trivial garbage, the dumbing-down of gut-shot-serious current events.
Just my $.02, sure, and biased to boot. But intelligent bias is a hell of a lot better than idiotic objectivity.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Reasons for success of a company:
1. good/unique product
2. consistent product
3. well adverstized product.
4. addictive product
5. monopoly on product
Starbucks is 2,3,4
Coke/Pepsi is 2,3,4
McD's is 2,3
Microsoft is 3,5
Capitalism: economic system, first described in detail by Karl Marx in Das Kapital in which capital goods, i. e. the means of production such as factories or tractors are owned by those who controll them, i. e. factory owners. This is not a post industrial idea, but actually one born in the heart of the idusrial revolution.
Communism: econimic system, first proposed by Karl Marx and Freidreich Engles in which the means of production are held in common, i. e., private ownership of capital goods has been abolished. It is fairly complex, but baisically means that you can own your toothbrush, television and house; but you can not own a factory, a mine, an oil well, or even a farm.
As you can see, neither is a political system. You can have democratic communist countries (in theory, at least), and you can have very oppresive Capitalist ones (Nazi Germany and Facist Italy.)
So where do we live? Well, most of our means of production are owned by large corporations. Those corporations are not owned by the people who controll them---the shareholders---but by executive officers appointed by large mutual and pention fund managers, and persons with usually less than 5% ownership of the company. Which means, there is not capitalism. It also means that persons who controll corporations are accountable niether to workers, nor to their customers, nor to the general pubic, but to people who can not see beyond the ticker at the NYSE.
So, the 5000 point bonus question: Is this the system which will result in a free society, or will sprout forth types like Ashcroft and his gang of freedom loving incarcirators?