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.

Comments

They will fail

[PD]

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.

Re:They will fail

[Kenja]

Da Comrade. The Capitalist Swine will fall any day now, overthrown by the will of the people.
Hey look, a Starbucks opened up down the street.

Re:They will fail

[urbazewski]

The cold war cost billions of dollars in real resources. It was a huge tax on the populations of all countries involved, contributed to massive environmental damage, and led to military support, arms and training for numerous guerilla organizations that either inflicted suffering on their own people (Honduras and Guatemala) or that turned out to be ill considered allies (like the Taliban).

While the behavior of those corporations seeking to protect their monopoly/oligopoly is unlikely to lead to wasted resources on the same scale, tremendous inefficiencies can be caused by, and I would argue, have laready been caused by, the strategic actions taken by the producers of proprietary software. It's not just the final outcome that matters.

Re:They will fail

[Dr Caleb]

fact that they sell a GOOD product.

They do sell a good product. Breath freshner for people who eat shit.

Re:They will fail

[SirSlud]

What a sick joke.

Starbucks employed the most agressive expansion strategy in the history of retail.

They themselves are responsible for the term 'clusterbombing' neighbourhoods .. by buying 4 or 5 stores (they admit to going specifically after trying to buy the leases out of already-existing entrenched local coffee shops) in a 3 or 4 span block, you couldn't escape them.

It was only people's desire to think they had control over their little universe that led them to think Starbucks multiplied in size a zillion times over the span of 5 years because they innately discovered a better coffee than all existing coffee shops.

What a joke. Anybody that takes an interest in corperate strategy either revears Starbucks as a hero, for successfully expanding faster than any retail gig in known history, for pioneering a few new coperate-expantion strategies like clusterbombing, for gutlessly buying out the leases of local favorite coffee shops (despite protests by local populations and local celebrities and dignataries) .. or as pure evil for somehow getting my fellow man into thinking they made it based on the merit of their product.

I wont even touch on what they did to international coffee prices. Now, 0.5% of their coffee beans are bought, in their words, "at a fair price." This was to silence those who rallied valiently to save the livings of coffee farmers the world over.

Re:They will fail

[Angst Badger]

Sure, the US is open compared to most of the countries in the world, but it's not as open as open source.

I hear this a lot from Americans. (Don't get your nationalist knickers in a wad; by accident of birth, I'm one of you, too.) The problem is that it is only a half-truth. If by "most of the countries in the world" you mean to include Brunei, Madagascar, and the Sudan, well, sure. But compared to the rest of the industrial democracies, it's not that clear-cut.

"Freedom" isn't a monolithic measurement, except to nationalist politicians. There are quite a few things I can do in various western European countries that I can't do in the United States. The converse is also true. For example, what Americans refer to as First and Fourth Amendment rights are considerably more open in some countries, while the American Second Amendment is pretty unusual for countries not ruled by hereditary warlords.

For my tastes, Germany is a much freer place. Someone who likes to own guns or is a Scientologist would probably feel differently. While it would certainly be nice if there were a most free or most open society, the truth is that you must ask "free and open in which ways?"

Re:They will fail

[vonWoland]

O.K., only if you go to grad. school in economics where the first thing you will be told is to forget all the myths you were taught in Econ 101.

Yes, a product can sell when people desire it, but that is not the same thing as the product being any good, or anyone needing that product. Don't belive me? Well you may be shocked to hear that ghasp cigarettes sell quite well, though they are neither a good product nor particularly usefull.

Furthermore, you go to any local coffehouse outside of the Midwest U.S., and see if what they think of your Starbucks coffee. Sure, if all you know is Folgers, it may seem like nectar, but compared to the worst coffee house in say Italy, France, Greece, Turkey, Germany, Spain et c. et c., Starbucks seems much like so much sewage.

I know, I know it is comfortable to hold on to those free market myths of yours. And you know what, if you actually found a free market, it might not be all complete bull. But find that free market, friend, but meanwhile try to get informed.

Trade Balance vs local Costs

[RichMan]

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.

Doesn't surprise me at all

[ronfar]

Our government is currently almost purely mercantilistic. That's why if you manufacture things out of steel in the US, the government is out to get you, but if you manufacture steel itself, the government is giving you a helping hand. For an article on what I'm talking about, see this one:

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.

reasons for company success

[GodWasAnAlien]

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

Re:just a quick note

[vonWoland]

O.K., I know I am wasting my breath but here goes:

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?