Slashdot Mirror
Optimizing Linux Advocacy Efforts
An anonymous reader writes "Open source advocate Tony Stanco, of the George Washington University Cyberspace Policy Institute has been getting flamed for allowing Microsoft reps to speak at an Open Source in government conference he's putting on next month. Today, in a commentary on NewsForge, Tony responds to the flamers. He says, "Leave it to the kooks in the community to make Microsoft look sympathetic." Is he right? Should we be willing to listen to what Microsoft has to say? Aren't open minds important to open source?" Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.
.GNU anyone?
Microsoft isn't the only one hurting open source. Many of the elitists do just a good of a job at giving opensource a bad name.
we should totally be open to listening to alternative points of view, but is an open source conference really the proper venue for it?
"You worthless post!"
-Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147
MS would LOVE to polarize the argument here.. give governments and companies a clear definite black and white choice, then demonize the hell out of the opposition.
Of course the kids looking for the quick +5 will jump on the anti-MS bandwagon in a hurry, the fundamentalist linux zealots will rush in to bash MS like a kid facing off in his first at-bat in tee-ball, but they're just serving MS purpose of polarizing the choices available....
Isn't the popular opinion here that quality sells itself? Right tool for the right job? Then advocate by making Linux better, not giving speeches.
Really.. the MS people know they're speaking to a tough house at events like this. Let them fall by their own devices..
MS Rep: We have Clippy.
OS Rep: We don't. We have robust, low cost software that in many cases outperforms proprietary software. We'll even give you the source code to modify the products for your own use. If you don't distribute the binaries, feel free to keep the source in-house.
MS Rep: We have Clippy.
Trolling is a art,
Yes, it it. You need to have all points of view covered if you want to do something right otherwise it just comes across as rampant fanboyism. Having M$ at an OS conference is a great idea. If M$ wants to stand up and fight AGAINST OS, then they'll have to do it on someone else's terms. I for one would like to see that.
If the Open Source community is so convinced of Microsoft's villany and non-worth, allow them to speak on their own behalf. People need to come to their own conclusions about this matter, or they'll never truly reconcile themselves to the fact that Open Source is a truly good thing, possibly even superior to Microsoft's offerings. Wouldn't it be better for the OS movement to win in a forum of free discussion, than to say, "This is MY point of view, and it's the right one. No, I won't let you speak and defend yourself, because I'm right." How childish does that seem?
In Other Words, whenever they ( or anyone else ) deploys FUD, bogus-reasoning, ignore-the-important -to- concentrate-on-whatever-we-say-is-'urgent', etc. we clue-in to what ignorance-commitment's doing, AND attack the method of ignorance-committing as-it-happens.
Behold:
Essence-of-integrity is the ultimate weapon.
( actually, from the buddhist AND from the nagual perspective, this is a key-method of mind-survival )
Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
... is open formats. If the Govn't decides that MS Word is their choice of word processors, so be it. But as a citizen of that Govn't, I should be able to use whatever software I want to view those documents - so either the .doc format needs to be open enough for OpenOffice.org to code to it, or the Govn't needs to use things like Rich Text or PDF files or whatever I can open using *my* choice of software.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Cheers,
Jeremy
""Leave it to the kooks in the community to make Microsoft look sympathetic." Is he right?"
No one except the policy-makers in Microsoft know.
If you take away the right of Microsoft to present their side, corporations are going to wonder what exactly it is you're trying to hide.
If the open-source products are to become a viable player in the Fortune 500 world, all of the players in the game must be allowed to present their side or mistrust results. The suits aren't about to let a bunch of arrogant open-source biggots tell them how to run their business. If the open-source community wants respect, they're going to have to GIVE respect (even if it means not receiving it in return). It's time to start behaving like professionals, people.
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
Usually people making negative waves grab more attention than people putting positive effort into something. Medias seem to love giving bad press.
If you're so confident about your platform outperforming another's platform, you should leave that other platform talk without even flaming back because you "know" that they won't be up to the match.
Reacting immaturely, flaming, crying out loud will not only look "kiddy", but will also get a press coverage like "Today, the conference was marked by a lot of people against [...]" and so on. Is that the kind of press that is needed?
I am not pro-MS or pro-Unix. If Flamer's argument is that microsoft keeps everything closed and are doing behind the door tactics, wouldn't it look more mature to simply accept the fact that they want to talk, and if you are confident about your platform, you could even make a debate. Usually people attending that kind of conference aren't idiots, if MS talks vague and conceptually like they love to do with their "marketting and PR" tactics, in the real world, with an intelligent and knowledgeable audience, I'm sure someone will bring them down to earth with insightful questions, and heck, you might even gain extra points beating their arguments live in the process.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
This is an OPEN-SOURCE CONFERENCE. Why would you invite Microsoft to an OPEN-SOURCE CONFERENCE? They're obviously not interested in anything other than trying to convert people and steal business.
That's like if I was on the high-school chess team and I threw a party and was told that I had to invite the football team, who would try and beat me up, and steal any chess girls that might (I can dream) show up.
It's a private conference, and it inviting Microsoft is (-1) Offtopic.
If there's one thing I can't tolerate, that's intolerance!
...is not Microsoft, it's the Linux freaks that bash Microsoft as hard as they can. It just makes every Linux user look bad.
Tony and Bruce Perens don't like having the light put on this event because Microsoft has no business being at an advocacy conference. They're not going to contribute anything, as they're not an open-source vendor. Unless you consider lies and misdirection a contribution.
Tony needs to shut up and fly right.
From the article:
What the loons on the extreme of the extreme don't understand is that Microsoft would love to have an excuse to not attend. Microsoft is not coming because it wants to. It is coming because it is compelled to.
It's Microsoft's government customers who want them there to explain themselves in public when they say that Shared Source is better than Open Source, instead of just talking that way in private. And it is the government that wants them to do it in front of Open Source supporters, so that they can hear both sides at the same time.
This sounds like a good idea. It forces them to state their views rather clearly in a discussion forum. What better way is there to scrutinize the issue than to hear both sides from the horses' mouths? If their "shared source is as good as open source" shpeal is just a bunch of rubbish then their arguements won't hold water. I'd be very interested to hear a compelling argument in their favor. Evaluating counter-arguments is a great way to formulate and solidify your opinion.
What could be better than to put a Microsoft rep on the spot? Ask him/her a few questions and listen to the answers. Why not use a few questions from an article from yesterday? It was something about the debate between Shared Source vs. Open Source. It's easy to "create" questions in your basement, it's making them "stick" what counts though.
I'd say make it a point to invite Microsoft to every Open Source conference. Let them speak and then ask questions.
Wonderful. Send them away. Tell them to come back when they get their act - in terms of open source software - together. Microsoft is bringing *nothing* to the table other than their "shared source" poison pill.
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was at OOPSLA and attended lectures by a number of people from MicroSoft. I even saw Bill's keynote.
In general, the MicroSoft techies know their stuff and are confident. I'd definitely listen to one of them speak.
On the other hand, if the people showing up are in any way marketers, I'd not be bothered listening to them.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Everyone who is pro OSS can grill MS and have a field day. This is a prime spot to ask the tough questions and pick apart the response, or laugh at the vacant stare from the helpless drone as he/she creates a cop-out answer
We should let them speak, but cover our ears and mumble "we're the best, we're the best, we're the best...".
Because he linked Newsforge. Slashdot seems to have a policy of acknowledging any relationship that they may have with quoted, or linked sources. This is a good thing, and most major newspapers also do this. In this case, there isn't any conflict of interest, but there have been a number of /. articles where there were (such as the recent criticism of Sourceforge). All the other /. editors do this too.
There are quite a few reasons to dislike Michael, but this isn't one of them.
Simple:
Upgrade your kernel!
Oh wait, that doesn't fix it? Drat!
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
This may be a troll, but I'll feed it: in journalism (I know, /. doesn't really qualify), whenever there is a relation between 2 companies, it is good form to make that relationship known so there isn't an impression of favortism or anything of the sort.
i hang up on telemarketers.
Microsoft is a waste of time, like telemarketers.
We should not be limiting vendora to pseak at these vents..
However, MS should be told tha tFUD has no value at these events and that spewing FDU can only harm their efforts at the conference..
I for one would love MS to get questioned about their NET patents at this conference..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Of course they should let Microsoft speak.
Dissention tempers ideas. Without hearing the other views of the world, how can anyone appreciate or even change what others see as wrong?
Sometimes an opposing view can even strengthen the resolve of the community it opposes. Heck, Microsoft may even drive more nails in their coffin.
How many of you out there haven't enjoyed a good argument with a Pro-Microsofty? Sometimes its just plain fun. So let them speak and have that fun on a bigger scale.
Gator/Claria is Spyware.
MS Rep: We have a well known operating system with established user interfaces, and is easily recognizable by people everywhere. We have the largest user base installment in the world. Thousands of applications, when installed using a single interface, will work without complicated kernel recompiling or device dependencies. We're a large corporation and, while that sounds like a bad word to many people, it means we have the resources and ability to help you 10 years from now when you're having trouble.
OS Rep: Yeah, well, M$ sucks.
First unroll your loops,
then profile the code, rewriting the hotspots in Assembly.
Get rid of all that Java code in the VM system.
If you find a bug, label it a feature and re-release.
Don't forget to rename your variables to shorter names. (a,b,c, etc )
And for god's sake Linux, please use a better language then C, has anyone written anything useful besides the linux kernel in C? (No Oracle doesn't count)
Tony does have a good point. In a way he is carrying the same tone he complains about. (A common issue). The Open Source Movement is a collection of individuals. Unlike a corporation where you check your words before speaking, we have our collection of people who feel the need to speak, "from the heart", if not always in the most tactful, thought out, and marketable fashion.
While the rogue/rambo programmer doing all nighters and running on Jolt cola and oreos has an allure to it. It makes the mainstream industry nervous and Microsoft does capitalize on nervousness.
Now, should Microsoft be there? Why not? Ours is OSS and they can get it just like everyone else. Does it hurt to hear where they see the future, what direction they take, and what direction they think the industry will take? If it makes you feel better put it in the context that they are MS and a competitor. We should look at this as the opportunity to interact with our competitors. And understand what they think. We do not have to agree on approach or direction. But open animosity? It benefits MS more than OSS.
That being said, Tony also needs to understand that the feelings people have are fostered by MS's actions past and present. In a way, it is like inviting someone to your house and finding things missing when they leave. You do have a feeling that you should watch them next time they visit.
Because one of the links was to Newsforge he has to say that.
Otherwise he gets accused of secretly farming eyeballs out to OSDN subsidiaries. It would be like CNN posting an article talking about how great AOL was, without mentioning that the two are owned by the same company.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
...to invite a token neo-Nazi to every discussion about Jewish culture, a token Communist to every WTO conference, and Bush to every discussion about re-liberalization of US.
Face it, Open Source and Microsoft are enemies. They may be competitors, alternatives, etc. second, but their basic nature makes them enemies because they have absolutely incompatible goals. If there is anything to talk about between those two, it should be done in conferences specialized in the areas where both compete, and there both sides can be expected to throw bucketloads of shit at each other in front of unusupected audience of potential users. However the conference that is specifically about Open Source has absolutely no need to have a representative of the worst enemy of it.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Laughed my head off....
Clik: "Should we invite Microsoft to our Open-Source Conference?"
Clak: "Duh, I dunno, but I saw their ads on Slashdot so OSDN must think it's OK. Isn't that the same thing?"
"The cup... the drop... it's a YES!"
On one hand, the Open Source community is better than they are. Just because Microsoft would never allow Linux or Open Source proponents at one of their functions does not mean we should lower ourselves to their level. We should demonstrate that we are bigger than that. Also, we have always been a community that values open discourse and the belief that the best technology/ideas should win based upon their own merits.
On the other hand, Microsoft's goal is FUD, not rational, logical, honest discourse. They could be a disruptive force to people who are trying to get honest work done. Also if someone publicly bashes you incessantly, calls you a cancer, lies about you, poisons your well, and threatens to kill you the first chance he gets, should you have to invite that person to your birthday party, regardless of how enlightened you are?
The term "open mind" is seriously abused. It can be used properly when you have multiple alternatives and don't know much about any of them. But if you KNOW enough about an alternative and know that it is not what you want, then you can exclude it and still have an "open mind".
We KNOW that Microsoft is against Open Source, so what is there to keep an "open mind" about?
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
that in spite of the petulant, immature, idiotic actions of some of the F/OSS community, linux is still seeing widespread adoption. IF, m$ products are better, let them be the choice. if they are not, it is because F/OSS solutions are superior. period. my father, who was a salesman for thrity years said this, that he never sold a single product because he "wasn't company _________".
i certainly want to hear what m$ has to say. and let's face, the radars will be on. you think thy can get away with saying a whole bunch of crap? they are coming because they have to. don't expect to windows code on sourceforge, but don't you realize how much F/OSS has moved m$ in a direction they didn't want to go?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
While I agree on some level with this, it is important to not even offer the appearance of close-mindedness here. This can be a big win or loose for open source. Arrogant attacks not only look bad, they can make MS look better in comparison. Remember, companies are often in the middle of choosing between the lesser of two evils. If the community acts like a bunch of 5 year olds attacking an institution, they will be dismissed as a "hobby" group. However, if the rebuttals are rational and level-headed, you have chance to show that open source is a valid choice. Keep in mind that you do not have to show that open source is vastly superior to MS, just that it is stable, dependable, flexible and (best of all) low cost. Companies just want to know that they can depend on the software to perform as they expect, even if the expectation is a reboot every week and patches 3 times a month. Show the industry that open source has a plan and the backing of a rational and professional community and you gain market by leaps and bounds. With the economy as it is, the free notion has quite a bit of merit if they can depend on it. This is the perfect time to strike and make your mark.
The fact is, Linux is encroaching on their Market Share. But since things can't change overnight, let them in and get them to talk about interoperating with existing Windows installations. Get them to write software that makes it easier to interoperate.
Then it will be easier to get rid of them. Really, they did this with Novel, why don't we do it with them?
I think it was funny.
"We have Clippy" - "Each moment takes us a step closer to Clippy" - "Clippy: Yes. It it possible" - "We followed our dream: Clippy" - "Clippy is fun". etc.etc
LOL!
Throw Fake Money Around,
In The Form Of
Rebates, and deny their
validity regardless of the
terms of the contractual
agreement.
Undersood?
No one stops Microsoft from speaking, and it would be extremely difficult to claim that their message isn't getting out. If Tony Stanco is putting on a conference on Open Source in government (as opposed to Software in government) then there is hardly any reason to waste important time, space and resources to give Microsoft another chance to attack Open Source, and it certainly could turn off someone in the government who came to this with an open mind to learn what he could about Open Source, only to see it turned into another pitch for Microsoft.
Sure, people should have an open mind, but you don't need to waste conference resources to give Microsoft a platform to try to destroy you to have an open mind. Microsoft would not give the open source people a chance to come in and persent alternatives if they were doing a "Microsoft in government" forum, they don't belong here.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If Microsoft provides Open Source software,
then they should be allowed to show up.
If they do this
~stuff~, then no.
I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned that Microsoft has a history of knocking open source and the GPL They reported here that GPL licensed software is a bad business model. Microsoft has also tried to muddy the waters of open source by propogating shared source or sharing source code with government organizations in order to be able to determine security risks. It is my opinion that Microsoft is not interested in open source, especially GPL. I think they are trying to skew the issues as much as possible and change open source initiatives into their desired model. For these reasons and more, I am not at all surprised that there is a backlash of critisism.
void
"I am not sure of the best method to get this view across. But Microsoft and other non-free software developers deserve protests wherever they have an event." What, EVERY software developer that produces software for a profit is now the enemy? Statements like this show the open source community needs to clean its own house before trying to take on the rest of the world. Open source is a wonderful thing, but this statement smacks of socialist paranoia. You beat them by offering up a better product, not by shouting "Capitalism is wrong".
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I read with interest about the optimization of Linux advocacy efforts, but at the risk of veering away from the main topic, I wonder about the wisdom of taking an open-source advocacy approach.
Sure it may look good on paper, but I wonder if these guys have thought about the opinion of the general public of Open Source/GNU/Linux etc.
I have been involved in the marketing (dirty word I know!) of software and hardware to non-technical people for a number of years. The consultancy group I work for numbers many of America's top blue-chip electronics and software corporations among its clients, I have over 11 years experience of marketing, and 4 years experience of software development (VB) and systems administration (NT 3.51), in addition to a marketing science qualification from one of America's top business schools - so it's safe to say that I know what I am talking about when it comes to computers and marketing.
I have been keeping an eye this forum for quite some time now, as part of my daily intelligence gathering, I find the robust exchange of views, and technical arguments make an interesting diversion from some of the other corporate bullshit I have to deal with in my working day. I also read corporate intelligence reports from the Gartner group, Forrester, the Meta group, and Olsen Online Business Intelligence Services. Slashdot has often proved to be far more accurate when it comes to the technical details,and I am often amazed at the incredible levels of intelligence and insight shown by its readership, some of whom demonstrate a knowledge of Linux and Operating systems far in advance of anyone I have ever met, even in the IS department of major corporations. For this reason, I feel I should contribute my 2c to the debate about the future direction of Linux and the whole Open Source movement in general.
I feel I can do my bit for the Open Source community by offering (free of charge) some of my hard-earned knowledge straight from the bloody trenches at the front-line of tech-Marketing. Normally I would be paid over $4000/day for my perspective, but Slashdot - this one's on me. You people can think of it as my small and unworthy attempt to "give something back" to the Community.
Why Linux/Open Source has an image problem in major US Corporations and what the community can do about it. Like any movment, political or religious, Open Source/Linux has its Leaders, High priests and Gurus. These high profile individuals represent the public face of the organization. Like it or not, these people are associated with the product in the eyes of the buying public. One of the first things the Linux movement must do in order to gain acceptence by middle-America and Joe-and-Jean Sixpack and their 2.4 kids, is to develop what we in the Marketing profession call a "Happy Face".
When Joe Sixpack drives past a McDonald's, he associates it with the smiling face of Ronald McDonald the clown,and quality food served quickly. When he is choosing a collect-call company, the smiling face of Al Bundy (of TV's Married with Children) springs to mind, and when he thinks of fried chicken in large capacity bucket-like containers, it is the image of the happy-go-lucky avuncular Colonel with his associations of good old Southern hospitality that sticks in his memory. (In marketing terms this is known as a "positive association". Because the image puts the consumer into a "buying-receptive" mental state).
Linux/Open Source lacks any kind of "Happy Face". Now this in itself is not a problem, were it not for the fact that Linux has several extremely high-profile advocates who are the exact opposite of "Happy Faces" in that they invite negative associations into the consumers head and put him/her into a state known by Marketers as "passive-aggressive sales-message rejection" (In layman's terms they don't want to buy the product).
Now, I will not lower the tone of the debate by naming names. I will give a few brief profiles and community members will know who I am talking about.
In reverse order of harmfullness we have the laconic, dour nothern European. Not known for his sense of hunor, and with far too many nights spent coding when he should have been out partying he creates an image of Linux as the OS of choice for "friendless geeks who never got laid". (note - I do not subscribe to this viewpoint, but trust me some of my focus group members do).
Then we have the good old gun-toting libertarian self-proclaimed open source guru. Although M.R. studies show that 78% of PC owners show right-wing bias this person is too wacko and off-the scale for them. He alienates them, and in the worst case scares them that they risk being physically harmed if they don't agree with his fundamentalist libertarian "philosophy".
Finally we have a bearded Communist hippy. Do I need to say any more ?
So the normal consumer associates Linux with a sucicidal friendless nerd from some godforsaken corner of Northern Europe, a plainly insane right wing lunatic, and an "alternative lifestyle" Communist throwback to Woodstock with a facial hair problem. Is it any wonder that time after time, the message comes back from my focus groups that Linux is for wierdos ?
Here are a few example comments from a focus group session from Q3 1999 in response to a question about their attitudes to Linux and open source software, you'll get the general idea.
"Linux - that's that geek system right ?"
"I tried Linux but it was too hard for me to install, then that guy flamed me on the newsgroups"
"I don't want any Open Source software because it is written by communists and I am concerned about security"
"My boss says Linux was written by Communists and Gun-Nuts"
"Linux is used by Communists who hate capitalism and Microsoft"
"Open source software cannot be any good because it is written by college students and hackers."
"Linux is not compatible with my USB peripherals"
"I would like to try Linux but my buddies would think I was a Commie"
I could go on and on with these genuine responses, but I think I've illustrated my point well enough. Linux has a serious image problem.
What to do about it is more problematic. Open Source proponents and Linux advocates are fiercely independent and proud of their alternative stance. They see any form of marketing as "selling out to da man" or "not groking it" or becoming a "suit" Any mention of money or financial rewards is derided, and developers are supposed to be content with "Kudos" from the community. Whilst this might be ok at college, or if you are tremendously wealthy, it cuts no ice with Joe Sixpack who was raised on Microsoft and associates Bill's millions with the quality of the software his company puts out. From the focus group again:
"If Bill (Gates) is worth that much money he must make the best software in the world."
"Microsoft must know what they are doing - the whole world uses their software."
"The best programmers work for Microsoft - they have the most tech-savvy hackers there."
"Microsoft spend millions on their software I think it is the best in the world. (referring to IE5)
Again the message is clear: Microsoft is winning the hearts and minds not only of Joe Sixpack, but also Juan Sixpack in South America, Jean-Paul Sixpack in France, Jeroen Van der Sixpack in the Netherlands, Nkwele-Olamu Sixpack in West Africa, Mohammed-Al-Sixpack in Iran, Kulwant Chandrasekhera Sixpack in India, and Boris Sixpack in the Russian Federation.
Their message is powerful, international, and presented relentlessly with no internal bickering and bitching.
What can be done ?
There are no easy answers. The Linux/Open Source community has proved unwilling or unable to accept critisim (even constructive criticism such as this) gracefully, preferring to mount foul-languaged assaults on the personal integrity of anyone who steps out from the party line.
I offer no easy solutions, however here are a few pointers:
1) As a damage limitation exercise Linux/GNU should appoint itself a "Marketing Spokesperson". This person would be the "official face of Linux/GNU/Open Source". First and Foremost, they would wear an expensive suit, especially when talking to the press or when dealing with high-profile major corporation with deep pockets and $$$s to spend. I realise this is ridiculous from a technical perspective, but with my blend of tech-savvy and marketing exprience, I realize the importance of presentation over technical merit. It goes against the grain of the community, but if we are to become the next Microsoft (and why else would we be in this game if not to win it at all costs), we must fight them on our battleground, but with the same weapons they use against us.
2) The Penguin logo MUST go ASAP. Although it seemed "cute" and funny at the time, in the eyes of the corporate MIS department it just looks juvenile. Linux needs a new logo, preferably one of those kind of eliptical ones with a swoosh that in the eyes of the public can mean one thing: Hip and cool DOTCOM Corporation. The logo should be bland, yet robust, non-controversial yet ahead of the curve, and toned in serious businesslike colors such as gray, silver, and white. It should transcend culture and religion to be internationally recognized like the Coca-Cola image is all over the world.
3) Downplay RMS, Linus, ESR, etc. They are technicians with zero understanding of the general public, or of software consumers in general. Indeed many of them only write their program for themselves to "scratch an itch". This is hardly the way to gain public acceptance.
4) Direct X - A MAJOR stumbling block on Linux's road to world domination is the lack of Direct X support for Linux. This trivial omission means that most games will not run on Linux. Linux could gain 1000's of new games by simply implementing the DirectX api. This is a no-brainer. Kernel support for XML would be a big performance booster too in the B2B and B2C application area, and would make Linux buzzword compliant for XML.
5) Finally FOCUS GROUPS. Before you think about starting that new open-source project, (be it a new web browser like Mazola, or simply a new front-end for the cdplayer application) Get a focus group together. Use a few minutes of your non-tech-savvy friend's time. If you don't have any friends like that, try your folks, or your grandparents. Ask them what they would like to see in your new program. This way, you will gain "market perspective" on the likely acceptance of your product by the "normal people" of the world.
thank you for your time
The more Microsoft talks about the pitfalls of open-source, the more they damage their own credibility. Since Microsoft has done more damage to themselves than hundreds of open-source advocates have, why not let them speak? http://news.com.com/2008-1082-981508.html
gcc -O3 -fomit-esr -funroll-rms -fschedule-oreilly -fud -Wimplicit-torvalds -Wil-wheaton advocacy.c
Microsoft speaking at an Open Source conference is clearly an oxymoron. They have made their position clear from years of predatory and monopolistic business practices.
We better make damn sure we have our best and brightest Open Source proponents in that room to shoot down the FUD that Microsoft is sure to be flying.
I have no confidence that the Microsoft Corporation will be able to change its spots overnight - if ever. "Shared Source" reinforces that view.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
One platform outperforming another is not the major factor affecting people's interests. Marketing is. Yes, we have to have the debate out in the open so that MS can state their side so that we can refute it. Yes, we have to be open and honest about it. But the platform will never 'stand on its own merits'. We beat Microsoft by out-marketing them.
Seriously folks,
On any given day we hear "Fscking M$ dirty wh0r35 m0n0p0l15t p1gz" repeated over and over again on slash...
Yet we see MS visual studio products being advertised on slash, we see ads for powerpoint, ect on slash, we see stories about M$ on slash..
Don't you think it's time we stopped giving m$ "bad press"?
There's an old saying, even bad publicity is GOOD. Everytime there is a microsoft story here, the webmasters at M$ are laughing their collective asses off as all of us make their webstats jump from a good slash dot effect.
MS webmaster 1: Hey Taco! How much do you want today to post another anti ms story?
Taco: Well, I think I have enough money, The wife is already using it to line the cat litter box and I can't seem to find my keyboard underneath the piles of cash. It's overflowing into the backyard and the rain is turning it all into paper mache'.
MS webmaster 2: No problem! We'll just give you gold Dabloons! Those can last for years, even in saltwater!
Taco: Great, I'll take a million Dabloons then!
*note to taco: I know M$ can't be paying you that much, it's just a joke.
Instead of all the MS bashing, if you want to advocate linux in your company, you should think out what you are going to say before approaching management. Think about how you can use linux and open source software to replace existing infrastructure such as groupware, development tools, network file/print services and network management.
The best way for any admin to do this is to begin with 1 box. A buddy of mine loaded nagios onto the network he's in charge of and the executive level staff fell in love! He's slowly begining a march of replacement within the company, exchange being dropped in favor of postfix, now a web based groupware instead of exchange.
But the fanaticism has to end, this is not how civilized responsible people act. You have to look at the problem from all sides and rationally explain the situation instead of "GOD DAMN MONOPLILIST! WE SHOULDN'T USE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE EVIL"
Thanks for reading my thoughts.
The purpose of the conference is quoted below. Its a vague description as best.
"This conference is designed to discuss best practices, raise awareness and the share experiences among policy makers from the U.S. and Europe. The conference will draw participants from local, national and international organizations from the public, private and academic sectors."
But knowing that the purpose of eGov(from what I can gather from their crappy website) is to boost Open Source, I don't understand why they would allow a company to participate who is against real open source. MS is a advocate of shared source not Open Source I see no reason why they should be allowed to go the conference. I don't see any reason for flaming or being nasty about it, but it seems pretty clear cut to me. Being that MS is actively trying to get governments NOT to use open source why give them a platform to espouse their views? Mr. Stanco says its about Free Speech, I say it must be something else. A new building for GW.U in a few years perhaps?
Just because Free Software is about choice doesn't mean you have to give your enemy "equal opportunity" to destroy you. Trust me, if this was a Microsoft conference they would not let linux advocates come so that potentials customers could get fair and balanced information from the "other point of view".
In the end if MS is allowed to go it will only hurt the conference, Open Source, and the credibility of eGovOS. It will only help MS in their goal of perverting the message of Open Source.
O.K. to add a "little" melodrama, this is like the NAACP allowing the KKK to speak at their national conference. In short it just sounds like a dumb idea.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
LOL. I always call michael out when he posts a Newsforge link and doesn't acknowledge the relationship.
Why is open source so freaking stuck on flaming against Microsoft? Is that the reason opensource exists? Isn't LINUX a (forgive the phrase) rip off of UNIX - high cost, great stability, sucky common user (Joe Blow) interface?
Microsoft should be allowed to present because they challenge that open source solutions are not as viable for this or other governments. I beg them to make a good case and convince us all that they have a point. Either the win the debate or they don't. It's really about fair competition no matter what their own objectives/practices are/may be.
Please remember open source is not just freeware for cheapskates. The idea of open source to allow as many inputs to the project as possible is an asset analagous to letting immigrants from many nations into the USA to help make this country great! Does the analogy hold that if a terrorist gets into our country that the overall product is bad? If you believe in free speech than you have to be able to defend the KKK ability to their point of view - also believing that their viewpoint will not dominate the world.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
I think the entire advocacy movement should do its best to ignore Microsoft altogether and instead focus on improving our own OS. If every dork that thinks they're clever by spelling Microsoft with a dollar sign instead contributed a meaningful patch to an Open Source project, Linux would gain ground a lot quicker.
All these pundits claiming free speech rights for MS when it comes time to discuss open source...where were you people when MS trampled on all those uncounted efforts by much smaller developers to have a share of the market? Where were you when small companies, one after the other, were made silent after being snapped up by MS and taken off the market? Where were you when MS directed it's own efforts to squelch internal discussion of open standards versus control over the market? MS is all about marketing and never about fairness and being open. MS is a documented criminal element and you want them to have the same rights as honest entities.
Give me a break.
This issue has absolutely nothing to do with free speech or censorship. This is a private conference being held to promote Open Source/ Free Software. It's like a big commercial. Microsoft doesn't allow Red Hat to have a few seconds of their TV ads to promote Linux. And anyone who thinks that this will give the OpenSource crowd an opportunity to corner M$ with embarassing questions is to be honest just crazy. M$ is a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. They will be very well be prepared and I would be surprised if anyone could ask them a questions that they weren't prepared for. Inviting M$ to this conference is like (forgive the cheesy anolgy) a a herd of sheep inviting a wolf into their pen, so that he can explain why he wants to eat them. There is a time for giving all sides a voice, this conference just isn't it.
Were you able to keep a straight face when you typed that?
Sigs are bad for your health.
First and foremost, if we're confident about our own position, we shouldn't be afraid to let the opposition speak. If we're scared that the opposition may sway opinions, then perhaps our viewpoint isn't quite as good as we think it is.
Secondly, Microsoft has made an ass of itself on numerous occasions when speaking about Open Source. They probably won't be stupid enough to attempt their typical FUD in the middle of an OSS convention--and if they do, then they'll net themselves far more negative publicity than positive.
Third, they may actually have something insighful to say.
Aren't open minds important to open source?
No offense, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...........
...as long as Microsoft lets OpenSource Advocates speak at Microsoft meetings
having an Open Mind is very important, but it is also important to have common sense and realize that letting a non-opensource company speak at an OpenSource meeting is quite...
It is one of the bedrocks of democracy and Western civilization that anyone can speak without obstruction or intimidation.
THEN you can rebut them vigorously, but it's imperative to listen.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Microsoft's avowed intention is to destroy Open Source.
We don't have their ability to take out primetime advertising, buy politicans to push forward our agenda or look the other way when we are convicted of a crime.
As a community, we should not be providing our primary enemy with ammunition to use against us, nor should we provide it with a platform from which to do it.
Linux conferences are no longer populated with the hard core enthusiasts that they once were. Atendees are often decision makers from organisations considering Open Source as an alternative to proprietary solutions. It is not in our best interests to allow Microsoft to muddy the waters for this, our target audience.
Those of you preaching "intelligent dialogue" with Microsoft (let's call it the Miguel de Icaza argument) should remember that nothing Microsoft has ever done has been beneficial to the Open Source community (at least by design) and that they will not reciprocate this invitation to us via primetime advertisments or political contributions.
Think about it the next time a Microsoft spokesperson calls you, the software you wrote, the software you use and the community you're a part of a cancer.
Yes dialogue is important, even with Microsoft, but NO! MS should not be speaking at this particular forum.
It is certainly the case that we should listen to Microsoft. Yes we should understand their position and business strategies and their criticisms of open source practices and gaps.
However, none of this means MS should speak at this particular forum. The purpose of an event like this is to *advocate* open source and educate people on its benefits. It serves no purpose to hear the alternatives viewpoints *in such a forum*. Do the democrats and republicans invite each other to speak at their political conventions? No! Do they both agree that dialogue, finding common ground, and bipartisanship are extremely important sometimes (even often). Yes. But they don't do it at their conventions because it isn't thematic -- they've created other forums for doing so that serve the purpose of two way dialogue much better.
A convention is not the proper format for hearing from the opposition. Nobody would suggest that a convention is a format where dialouge, defined as two-way conversation occurs. No Q&A sessions do not count, because the audience and the presenter are not given equal footing -- the presenter has the mic and a huge advantage.
All that allowing them to speak does is lend legitimacy to the idea that their "shared source" initiative is a viable substitute worth examining. It's not, and the conference organizers should not give the mic to anybody who doesn't agree. If you want to hear the MS party line on shared source, you certainly have no shortage of opportunities to hear about it.
I am not comfortable with MS at Open Source events at all. I think there is this attitude of "free speech" that is a bit misplaced. MS has no shortage of avenues to speak. They blitz the media and anyone who'll listen. They have deeper pockets than we do, which is evidenced by their very presence in Linux magazines as well as at events. It's one thing to have an MS ad in Linux Magazine given that such advertising dollars keep the rag alive. Given them an open forum to speak to, and even to give them equal time at an even to potential Linux customers is dangerous. Yes, I feel we can compete equally but that assumes that there are rules being adhered to. Don't forget that these are the Al Queida of the software world. They've declared a jihad on Open Source. We can all sit around and hold hands and say "Let the fanatics speak, they're people too." Yet, no one is saying they can't speak. They are saying don't bring them into our strategy sessions and into our marketing events. They want Linux dead! They don't want to compete. They are not here to find out how they can co-exist. They are trying to find weaknesses. They are looking for a way to disrupt us. No one is censuring them, they're simply saying "You're not welcome here." Why shouldn't this be allowed? >
Isn't this the same company who called Linux "cancer"? Didn't they say that Open Source is unsecure? Isn't this the same company that ran ads against UNIX type systems? I realize we need to hear their side of the story, but why don't they just publish it online like many of other people do?
MS will go around spreading FUD, calling OSS people communists and refering to open source as cancer. The OSS folks will never stoop to their level, will remain "open minded" and let them say all that. If the OSS folks ever object or call them on it then the MS rep will call them zealots and compare them to terrorists and MS will win this argument handily.
OSS advocates are between a rock and a hard place. MS has no ethics and is willing to resort to name calling and smears, if the OSS people talk back then they are labled zealots.
War is necrophilia.
Like everyone here, I think they should attend. Of course, I think nobody should show up to their speeches.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
would help. You wouln't look so much like rms then.
Actually, what I was getting-at was fundamentaller: .. somewhat isn't entirely-valid a concept, in this context )
allowing anyone to control-the-definitions, or torque-the-assumptions, or 'authoritatively' arrange somewhat-false assumption into being-assumed 'normal', for any reason, in any context, in any way, means allowing them to own one's totality, or whole-potential... ( or allowing 'em to own at-least-some-of one's totality and whole-potential: it's like being slightly-having-cancer
Figure it this way:
Say I'm arguing with a hospital that rigs their meals for their patients to happen all-at-once, and that means that they are 'understaffed' 3x/day, and some patients don't get fed, and some patients get injured by the rushed 'care', etc...
Say that simply changing from a batch-prep kitchen system to a continuous-prep system, and asking the patients whether they'd like their meals earlier than the Standard Meal Time, or later than the Standard Meal Time, would mean some statistical spread so that the hospital wouldn't be 'understaffed', anymore, they'd be entirely able to manage...Say the hospital won't allow awareness of this assumption that-determines-potential, because they use all means they can to keep everyone in the assumption they are in-love-with ( and this alternative means assuming a patient is human, and has valid, real human-worth, of course, other's human-worth threatens ASSumed Institutional Amportance[tm]... )...
They may even validly believe that they're getting increased potential-funding ( if they live/work in a political-world ), but doing-this undermines worth, and grows false-assumption-mode.
Accommodating this grows false-assumption-mode.
Anything other than destroying this: grows false-assumption-mode.
If one is to be integrity, one must commit total living integrity, and absolutely non-allow bogus-'integrity'.
Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
And yet you insist on calling them "M$". How about really growing up and dropping the childish name calling?
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Microsoft is not necessarily *anti* open source, they are pro protected IP rights. These two things are not necessarily at odds. Internally at MS, you have a mixture of people, many of them very smart, some rabidly pro-MS (Program Managers) and some who are very much pro-Linux/*BSD (Developers). At the top of the heap, at the Evangelist level and above, there are many people who openly acknowledge the benefits of the OS community, but *not* the Free Software community. FS is much too radical for MS, as it is in direct opposition to part of the prime directive: make money.
That being said, there are many people within MS that see great value in the OS (not FS) philosophy. Mark my words: we are not far off from MS utilizing OS in some capacity. Obviously they will never OS Windows, SQL Server, or Office, which is possibly just as well (who wants to look at obsfucated VC++ code anyway?).
If MS can be shown a solid *business* reason to use OS, I don't think they are far off from biting. This conference and MS's participation, in my opinion, will do more good for the OS advocates than it will for MS.
source or otherwise is better than the entertainment I can find on ALL 600 Plus channels on my satellite reciever during any casual evening.
..." in it.
Why in Gods name would some one want to prevent Microsoft from speaking at such an event is beyond me.
Let Microsoft come, sit back and watch the show.
Just remember, like most credits afterwards in most movies or entertainment you watch...
"The likeness, situational or otherwise in comparison to real life is purely coincidental..."
Which is exactly what you should be thinking if you see Microsoft speaking on anything that has the title "Open
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I hope so. MS has (iirc) >$56 billion in cash. (For the purposes of this comment, "cash" mean investments that can be converted to cash within 6 months. This is the standard financial definition.) There's a reason they have that kind of cash, its because they are terribly shrewd investors. MS isn't going anywhere, unless the US government suddenly decides to break them up, and even then I doubt they'd suddenly dissapear. The baby Bells are still around, after all.
So yeah, MS will be around in 10 years to help you (just as much as they do today, which is another argument entirely) because they're smart enough to manage their money and their resources. You don't get to the top by being stupid.
--
Phil
Nothing ever changes. Most of you are more interested in having a good chuckle with your pathetic comments from behind the safety of anonymity than to actually engage and cooperate with the (few) people who are willing to stick their necks out for the values and principles that are so eloquently touted but rarely acted upon. I don't necessarily agree with those ideals, but I respect them nonetheless. What I find sad is the extreme polarization that seems to permeate these debates.
In the end, one thing is certain: you will never give 'M$' a run for their money unless you get off the "oh, but we're so absolutely fucking better than you, eat that" horse and start walking the walk instead of just jabbering hysterically about how evil Microsoft is and trowing hissy fits every time Balmer farts in your general direction.
If you want the fence-sitters to listen you should stop the folowing activities:
- Spelling Microsoft "M$", Micro$oft". "Microshaft", "Microshit", etc...
- Ditch the Billgatus of Borg icon.
- For the love of God, stop spelling it "Windoze"!
In short, stop the name calling.It doesn't make you look like you are standing up to the man!. It makes youi look like an infantile jerk who has to resort to name calling.
The joke is old and tired. And again makes you look like a child.
From my parent's basement in Toledo I stab at thee!, indeed.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Tony, please ask youself honestly, are you advocating Open Source or yourself? You were an outsider to software, and then jumping into the software world by first associating with Free Software, and then switching to Open Source, and now the Microsoft event. Are you really loyal to some principles? Or you change directions from time to time, doing whatever is convenient to establish yourself?
Did the government officials who will attend the conference ask you to invite Microsoft? Or you did that on your own? If the latter you are using the presence of both sides to increase your own weight, to make you one both sides have to reckon with?
Microsoft has its own conference for government officials, the so-called "Government Leaders' Conference", every year. Last year Bill Gates used it to attack the GPL. Microsoft really has too many opportunities to gain visibility and to be heard, one way of which is to "donate" millions of dollars to countries. Microsoft really does not need another conference to push their own agenda. If you are loyal to Open Source, you would not waste valuable time of government officials not on Open Source advocacy but on Microsoft's advocating their "shared source."
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
What interest could CmdrTaco 'n' Hemos POSSIBLY have in whether Linux is advocated or not? They've got their fancy top o' the line Apple powerbooks so THEY don't need no open source software! They's payin' for they's closed-source proprietary software!
The problem is that even if you consider MS a troll they are the largest troll you've ever encountered and the only way to stop them is to fight back in some aspect, you can't simply ignore them. MS has a special status regaurdless of if you like or hate them. If you like them they are your biggest friends, and if you hate them they are your biggest enemy.
That said, if you allow MS to speak at an OSS conference and they are actuall able to pursuade the attendants, who I would concider OSS advocates and guru's, to switch away from OSS then maybe MS is doing something right. If you really believe in something you shouldn't be able to be swayed.
Perhaps the OSS people are afraid that there isn't any one solution be is MS or *nix or whatever.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
No, that's simply wrong.
There is nothing about the definition of Open Source that in any way excludes Microsoft. Any day now Microsoft could release any number of their products using any collection of OSI certified licenses that they happen to like.
We may all think this isn't likely to happen in the near future, but who really knows.
Microsoft may not have anything particularly relevent to add to a conversation that is strictly about Open Source, but they are a fairly large software vendor, and it could be quite useful to hear what they have to say about Open Source.
The key is to get them to talk about Open Source, instead of twisting the conversation back to Closed Source or Shared Source, both of which are quite different.
Here's a suggestion: If someone from Microsoft is speaking at an event where Open Source is a ligitimate topic, avoid taunting them or anything, and wait until they ask for questions. Spend that time listening to what they say so you can ask more meaningful questions.
If they don't allow time for questions, loudly call out something like "Hey, who here has questions they'd like to ask Microsoft? Raise your hand if you have a question for Microsoft." before they leave the podium.
I'm guessing they won't want to leave the podium with half the audience raising their hand to ask a question.
Once they ask for questions, ask meaningful questions and give them space to provide meaningful responses.
If you are arranging an event where Open Source is a legitimate topic, consider asking people from Microsoft to speak at the end of the day, so there can be an extended period of time for questions.
Of course, if you are speaking at such an event, try not to be placed in a slot right after Microsoft, because the room might be full of people with questions for the previous speaker.
The whole point of the conference is to learn more about open source and how it is different from M$ shared source. If the accused doesn't have the right to speak on behalf of themselves all we are doing is making open source look like a bunch of bullies with no sense of how to work in the real world. For years the open source community has tried to get to the point where knowledge is shared and companies are not afraid to use it. How are companies, the government, etc. going to feel comfortable about using it if they can't compare it with what's out there already. It's time to put the ranting aside and show everyone that open source is awesome and is here to stay. Or if we continue like this then I agree with the article when it says:
"This fear and intolerance of opposing viewpoints is an anathema to reasonable people and hurts Open Source more than anything anyone can possible say against it.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke
Because if Open Source is about anything it's about maintaining its security through obscurity.
Right?
And besides, this would be letting them in, and taking them on, on our home turf, where we make the rules and carry all the advantages and have the vast majority of the crowd behind us.
MS are just being wussies to saunter onto the field of battle with those sorts of odds going for them.
I mean, we'd be, like, sitting ducks, right?
KFG
Vegetarian is derived from the latin
vegetus -a -um [lively , vigorous, fresh]
perhaps you mean
herbivore n. An animal that feeds chiefly on plants.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Today, in a commentary on NewsForge, Tony responds to the flamers
:P
Wasn't there at least a little better term they could have used?
-Jason
Microsoft is a company that sells software (which is with small and niggly exceptions source-secret software), employs a bunch of people (most of whom probably are not *actually* the devil), is run as a public corporation (which adds lots of bureaucratic, buck-shifting fun to the mix), and -- all else aside, just for a moment -- has had a big a role in lowering the cost of personal computing as any other company or group. Microsoft's desktop software (things like Office, etc), whatever you think of it, represents much better value than was available not many years ago. Partly that's because there *wasn't* any such thing as certain pieces of software that are now available to run on Windows.
:)
You may agree with me that source secrecy is a big snag in whether you should want to pay for or use a particular piece of software, or you may say "If it works, who cares whether the source is there?" And no one can make that decision for you.
My biggest problem with Microsoft is related to that though -- my beef is that they end up as a money sink for a *lot* of money taken from the public in the form of taxes, and which is supposed to be spent in a way that maximizes public good. That's the whole justification for taxes in the first place. I can think of no way that "the public good" is better served by buying software which is as license-crippled as Microsoft's than by financing (and financing modifications if need be) the development of open source software. I happen to like the GPL, but the BSD license (or similar) is what I'd like to see on state-funded software; anyone who'd like can spin off a GPL version, no harm / no foul. The FSF should have a bot that checks when new tax-funded software is released, and issues a GPL'd version, posts it to a web site
If you say to this stance "Ha! Why should the government be in the software development business?" note that the government already *is* in this business, only they're currently financing software in a way that does not make it very available to the public. That's "The Public."
I've said before and still believe that Microsoft *could* become the world's largest open source vendor, and still make a lot of money at it. IBM's approach shows that boxed software is not the only way to make money, and (the other side of the coin) being confident enough to work with open software is a selling point.
History is still happening; I wonder what Microsoft would do if the Federal government made source code disclosure (one scenario would be that source code disclosure be disclosed, but only after a specified time spent in escrow) a requirement of software purchases, for both security auditing and general-welfare reasons.
That sounds quixotic, but it's what they should do.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
What are they going to say? Their approach to "shared-source" is better? Open Source stifles competition and innovation? TCO is better in Windows Servers? These are some of their old arguments, and I would really like to see how they stand by them in front of real OSS developers.
But what I'm really interested in, is that they could very well bring some new elements to the table, as Microsoft so far has never discussed openly their stance on Open Source. This is a golden opportunity for us to debate important issues and walk out stronger, even if they really showed that our OSS/Free Software development environments suck (as if).
I would like to ask them new questions, not "What do you think it's wrong with the GPL?". or argue whether [open|closed] software is better, these are things we and them will never agree upon.
I'd ask them: "What are your long-term plans on opening your own source?" "Do you think your software can be improved by opening the source?"
Remember how the Mindcraft benchmarks accelerated the development of faster and better HTTP servers? Let them make their plans, and see if we can learn a thing or two.
As long as they don't give full freedom to developers like we do, there's no need to act afraid as if we were a company facing the competition and we're losing our "trade secrets" just by having a good talk with them.
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
This is about lobbying for a position.
I don't see the oil companies inviting alternative energy and environmental protection groups into conferences discussing how to improve oil production/development.
I don't see World Finance groups bringing poor people into their conferences. (perhaps they should)
As a rule, a particular constituency has a right to organize and exclude those that do not represent the values of that community. Why should we not take advantage of this? Why should we let the deck be stacked against us because 'we are better than that?'
Open meeting laws do not apply to these private gatherings.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
This will surelay strike another conspiracy thread: Has Microsoft secretly killed its pirating employee? Mafia-like behaviour in the software industry?
:
Check it out
Ex-Microsoft Manager Charged with Theft Dies
SEATTLE (Reuters) - A former Microsoft Corp. manager who was facing prosecution for allegedly stealing more than $9 million worth of software died unexpectedly at a local hospital four days ago, the King Country Medical Examiner's office said on Tuesday.
Daniel Feussner, 32, died last Friday due to multiple organ failure, but the cause of death could not be determined until further tests were conducted, an investigator at the Medical Examiner's office said.
Officials for Overlake Hospital Medical Center in Bellevue, Washington, did not confirm whether Feussner was a patient there, citing the hospital's privacy policy.
Feussner was out on bail after being fired and arrested in December for allegedly obtaining software meant for internal use and selling it illegally to fund a lavish lifestyle of luxury cars, jewelry and a yacht.
"We are very saddened by this tragic event and our hearts are with Daniels' family and friends," said Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake. (Emphasis mine, this is ridiculous)
... Open Source advocates get some time at Microsoft's government conferences.
Miko O'Sullivan
No. Open Source and Microsoft are NOT enemies.
The goal of the Open Source community is something roughly like "Provide high quality software while expanding awareness of the value of open collaboration.", while the goal of Microsoft is something roughly like "Sell lots of software and consulting services while insuring stock prices keep going up."
These don't conflict.
Neither Open Source or Microsoft must fail for the other to be successful. The success of either one may have implications for the other, but this isn't an XOR situtation.
"However the conference that is specifically about Open Source has absolutely no need to have a representative of the worst enemy of it."
Humor and irony also have value. It may (or may not) currently be true that Microsoft is fundamentally opposed to Open Source, but so what? Assuming we can keep Microsoft from manipulating legislative powers to harm Open Source, what can they do that they haven't already been doing all this time? Does Shared Source really scare us so much?
Open Source is great because we can work together for our mutual benefit. If some companies are fooled into accepting the freedoms promised with Shared Source, they will need to realize their mistake before they get to be part of our collaborative effort, but that doesn't reduce our ability to work together.
Aside from perhaps taking up some time that might have been better filled with a different speaker, what harm is Microsoft really capible of doing at this event?
The hate for Microsoft seems a little unfounded. You act like MS burnt your villages and stole your wives. Sure I run Linux, but I also run Windows, and I feel that open source could learn a few things from MS. Sure MS has a different philosophy when it comes to business and what they do with their source, but they have a right to structure their company the way they want. Don't get me wrong, I think open source is great and should be supported over other models. However, I don't think that MS is evil or should be shunned when they have something to say.
SIGFAULT
1. It's easier to pronounce, and there isn't any confusion among stupid people as to where the stresses are. 2. It comes in a box. And you can play Fallout on it. And Fallout 2. Fallout games rule. Rule I tell you. 3. Lunix contributes to stupid intellectual coffee-shop conversations like "Oh yes Maurice (Sebastian, David, Merle, etc...)! Why then I simply told him that he could recompile the source to reintegrate the kernel and finally by tarring all the gzip source he could fully utilize his filesystem's inherent security. *queue smug and superior laughter*" Yeah, anyway I'm done my ranting... Take your kernel and shove it up your Open Source. Then you can go fsck yourself! MUHA!
Death to Reefer Addicts.
--
I wonder if Tony Stanco is an advocate for anything other than himself.
It started when Rubin Safir (the founder of NYLXS) heard about the eGov conference and the fact that MS would be speaking. As the flame continued, Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman, and myself all chimed in.
The majority of the people on the list want to forbid MS from speaking _at_all_costs_.
Basically, they don't like the idea of letting Microsoft talk, and then rebutting MS's arguments via a following speaker and a Q&A session. They say it just gives MS more floor time, which is bad. They have a point, but people will hear MS's FUD, and I would rather people heard it and then heard it debunked. In other words, if MS is going to say anything at all about open source, I want it on _our_ terms and in _our_ forums, not theirs.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
I dont care for Microsoft and most of their software is junk in my book. But we should listen to what microsoft and anyone else is saying. Listening to a diversity of ideas helps spark new ones. You dont have to agree with microsoft or like them but they do say things that have insight in them. In my mind the problem with flamers on both sides is that they are afraid that their favorate software will be distroyed by their oponent. Microsoft flames Open Source because they see it as a threat. Open Shource People flame Microsoft because theya re afraid that they will distroy the other.
If people would stop fearing each other and have a public forum which discusses the differences in views perhaps there could be a happy medium that could profit both sides. But this will not happen until both sides start listening to each other.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
\Behaving like professionals might require defending the focus of the conference against lightweight argument and wholly inappropriate demand for 'fairness'. Microsoft's rights are vociferously defended by it's 650 lawyers, by it's buckets of campaign gold, by it's multimedia advertising presence, by it's purchase of influence, retention of prime PR and lobbying firms.
Behaving like a professional might require a little more careful thinking. One doesn't need to ask a fox to adddress the chickens inside the henhouse in the interest of 'fairness' or allowing opposing views.
Behaving like professionals might be protecting an environment of freedom where government IT and managers can safely convene, discuss, review and determine where free software can best help our government's mission, without fear that Microsoft will be going to congressional committees and administration about their potential choices of viral, anti-American, terrorist-friendly software, naming names and departments.
Behaving like professionals might require telling Microsoft it fails to play this game fairly and needs to be muzzled to allow fair consideration of real options. To get rid of the muzzle, show us the software from Redmond that comes with GPL or OSS source code license. Show us the internet, data and document standards to which you are committed to uphold, instead of overthrow and supplant. Donate the OpenGL patents to the FSF. Open the OEM license to allow PC vendors to preload the OS of customer's choice. Vigorously advertise, support and provide the refund stated in the EULA...if Windows is not good enough to back with a real money-back guarentee, that's really not American! Donate marketing to free software groups. Donate computers to schools allowing them to use GPL software without being covered by that all-encompassing PC and Mac license currently being foist upon school districts.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Should we be willing to listen to what Microsoft has to say? Aren't open minds important to open source?
The whole point of open source is the source code. That's why it's "open source". If they have source code to share, post it. If they don't, go home. That's been the way it's worked for some time now.
I've heard open-source/shared-source debates before. If they have something new to bring to the table, post it on a web page, or a blog, or usenet. The only reason to do it at an open-source convention is a publicity stunt.
This is why the open-source community comes across to many of us as more legit: when Linus has a new idea, he posts some source code; when Microsoft has a new version, they throw a circus. *yawn*. Show me the code.
Nothing about Open Source definition excludes Microsoft.
But everything about Microsoft excludes Microsoft.
If I were using just Open Source, I wouldn't particularly care which venues were open to Microsoft, but I do use mostly Microsoft and there is a vast difference between the promise and the reality. If I go to any Open Source whatever I do not want to be subjected to more of Microsoft's noise. I want to be able to pick up the faint glimmer of hope for a better world.
So I hear that Microsoft wishes to speak at an event designed to promote and educate governments about the benefits of Free and Open Source software. Hmm. And that the people running this event say yes to a presentation that claims Shared Source is Open Source and that freedom doesn't matter. Why should an Open Source advocacy event give a forum to views that disrupt the conference? If I submit to a linux conference a paper on pancake turners, I would expect it to be summerly rejected. Why wasnt their submission similarly deemed off topic and simply rejected? Worse yet than simply being off topic, it's not just off topic, but deliberately hurts the efforts of other speakers and goals of this conference as a whole. Finally, how many excellant Free and Open Source speakers were cut from the program in order to give a platform for Microsoft and it's allies in Software Choice to present their views?
Hmm, if Microsoft needs to be given a chance to speak at this event, should not the community be given equal access to Microsoft's famous Government Leaders conferences? That would seem like a fair deal to me, or as Bruce might say, a Sincere Deal!
Microsoft employees must be having a grand time with this discussion. The reality is:
1. The conference will be attended by people who want the facts and have limited time to absorb them. Microsoft intends to muddy the water enough to mislead. Let them do that at their innumberable sales gigs. Let the conference concentrate on facts and data, not obfuscation.
2. OSS and Shared Source are not in the same ballpark, despite sales hype to the contrary.
3. Just as soon as Linux advocates are invited along for equal time on Microsoft sales calls, Microsoft should be invited to OSS conferences.
couple more points for ya buddy and for the anonymouse one who wrote the story
1."Aren't open minds important to open source?"
its good to have an open mind;to pour in knowlege not shit!which brings me to the next point
2. Microsoft makes an inferior product for which they have to lie in order to sell.We have all heard what Wild Bill Gates has to say about Linux and "open sores" software.
3.There is NO POINT to many things like:Inviting Nazis to Temple as guest speakers,Taking a liberal to a Republican Convention and inviting a speaker to spread FUD about Bills Folly and Open Source.
4.Beer is good.Therefore you should drink more beer and forget these silly notions you have about the importance of microscud as compared to the future of computing.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
But everything about Microsoft excludes Microsoft.
That was so well said. Microsoft's continuous lying and FUD, and their pathetic Shared Source, which is nothing but an attempt to fool people into thinking that they're getting on board, come immediately to mind.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
M$ knows that windoze and .Not is a inferior product
than Linux and Java. So they will always will down play linux and java credibility with lies and false advertising.
Inviting M$ to a open source meeting/convention is like inviting a jackel to chickens den.
M$ goal is to kill opens source and Java.
The best way to spread the word about Linux?
NINNLE, of course!
Did you know that even Linus uses Ninnle?
Be that as it may, my point was related to the latter part of the statement - my bad for not providing the appropriate emphasis thusly:
we have the resources and ability to help you 10 years from now when you're having trouble.
You already alluded to my real point when you said:
just as much as they do today, which is another argument entirely
The only "trouble" that Microsoft seems to be genuinely concerned about helping people with is excess weight in the money pocket.
Sigs are bad for your health.
I thought that was sun.....
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
EOL
If (EverythingMS) == BAD then AdvocateCredibility == FALSE.
Be objective. Linux's merits will stand out. Just don't sound like a zealot.
Hm, Copernicus found himself in a similar dilemma. Only it wasn't zealotry he was charged with, it was heresy.
When your only choices are "downplay the truth" or "sound like a zealot", it's tough to manage. The truth does not always lie between the extremes of popular opinion. Only the middle lies there.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
"We invited Eben Moglen from the Free Software Foundation to our annual BSA convention in Washington a few months ago to talk about the GPL, and everyone welcomed him with open arms when he spoke."
Well, yeah. That's the embrace part. Extend comes later.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
And, from what I have seen, MS really does listen. They were going to force expiration of Windows NT certifications, and so many people were against it, that MS will not retire the cert. There was also the proposed changes to their licensing model.
Also, MS is very good at listening for ways to improve their product. Office has been getting steadily better since O95 (the first version I used), the improvements they have made to their OS's have been phenominal. the improvements to other products, like SMS, continue to make them steadily better than their previous versions.
So no, I cannot agree that MS squelches its critics.
Second, the thing that I really like about being a linux advocate is that I can be a zealot if I want to, or I can be reasonable if I don't want to be This is a really bad statement. Its like saying 'the thing I like about living in America is I have the right to say anything, no matter if its true, false, or stupid'. I dont see blind, rabid promotion of anything to be positive. Sure, I dont think people should be silenced, but I view lies and stupidity to be the downside of freedom of speach, not something to celebrate. So should Microsoft, but they aren't (and have never been) free to do so This isnt true either. Many people within MS are Linux advocates, and even contributors. However, MS does have a valid point in banning Linux use within the company- if any GPL'd code is used in an MS product, then, legally, MS cannot charge for that product, and has to make the source available. When you are a for-profit business, giving away your products is hardly conducive to STAYING in business. Take Mandrake for example. Free beer does not a successful tavern make.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
... and during the Q&A after his speech tell the Microsoft speaker that I think "Shared Source" is lipstick on a pig.
-- Stan Klein
As much as the closet philosophers on this site seem to enjoy discussing how wonderful it is to debate Microsoft, and how genteel and fair-minded it would be, no one is actually reading the information about the conference.
So thank you, Mr. XaXXon, for stating the obvious. There is an outline, a description, a guideline for requests for papers, all sorts of information.
And what do they say? This is a conference about Open Source Software in government. Ta Da!
Does Microsoft create Open Source software?
No.
Why will they be at the conference?
To promote Shared Source, and unofficially to argue that requiring Open Source in government is bad (through their friends the "Software Choice" group).
Why are they participating?
Because certain people involved with the government and with George Washington University pressured Tony Stanco into including them. In addition, Microsoft came right out and solicited a slot.
Why would they do that?
There is an article on eWeek today explaining Microsoft's position: Bill Gates himself said that any mandate of Open Source software in government is dangerous to their business and must be prevented.
Will Microsoft be fair against those they consider their competition?
I'm not going to insult anyone by answering that. Look, there are plenty of conferences and events that everybody participates in, and plenty that are private and exclusive. That isn't censorship -- The Republicans usually don't invite Democrats to speak at their nominating convention, for example. If Microsoft wants a public debate let them put it together, or do so in concert with others and using an appropriate, descriptive name for the event.
It's their fight to lose, although they should never be underestimated. But to have a giggle while provoking them or playing along with their games risks the possibility that everybody's favorite Gandhi quote will be turned against you. You know, "then you fight them, then you lose."
If you bother to read the threads around the editorials, you'll notice that there is a lot to be suspicious about. Possibly even that someone is using the Open Source movement for their own purposes.
But regardless of all of that, how nice it would be to have a conference where Open Source advocates, vendors, and supporters could discuss their work and ideas with representatives from governments around the world! Something tells me that Bill Gates enjoyed himself when he spoke to an audience full of Microsoft Valued Professionals the other day. We don't owe everybody a set at every table, and there will be plenty of chances to argue and debate later.
In the meantime, the "loons" and "kooks" will continue to represent the movement that they somehow managed to start in the first place.
I wish people would read about the conference.
Microsoft isn't there to talk about any of the things you describe. Jason Matusow will talk about the benefits of Shared Source versus Open Source. There will be no debate -- it's a presentation. Attendees will be lucky if they can ask questions afterward.
The Software Choice people will be there to explain that the government should not be required to use Open Source software.
Tony is forging a political career for himself on the back of Open Source, George Washington University, and his Cyper Policy Institute.
Does that remove any romanticism from anybody's high-minded posts on this site?
You have it half right: Open Source is not necessarily the enemy of Microsoft, but Microsoft is absolutely the enemy of Open Source. Bill Gates said as much at a speech he gave today, and how many interviews with Steve Ballmer do you need to read to get a similar impression?
The harm is done when Microsoft manages to confuse their "Shared Source" with Open Source in the mind of conference attendees, many of whom will be non-technical government bureaucrats from around the world.
And I tend to think that taking up someone else's space is bad enough.
Don't make it any more complicated than it has to be. This a conference about Open Source Software in Government.
Microsoft is a convicted predatory monopolist that engages in anti-competitive behavior.
The corporate culture of Microsoft is to win at any costs -- winning is more gratifying than the money, although that's great too.
Why play around? Let's have one nice event with some advocacy, showcasing, marketing and discussion. Plenty of time to take on the beast later -- this is not the place.
Novell? Good example! That interoperability really helped them a lot. They were so grateful they didn't participate in the anti-trust action against Microsoft!
Look, the presentation is about Shared Source. There won't necessarily be a Q&A afterwards. It serves nobody's purpose but theirs, confuses the issue, and is completely inappropriate for a gathering about Open Source in government.
Yeah, what has fanaticism ever accomplished?
I don't know, how about: The Free Software movement, which led to the Open Source movement, which led to your buddy's copy of nagios...
Thank you for considering the possibility that all sorts of personal politics may be at work behind this conference. No one else seems to give that much thought, apparently.
Tony is a lawyer, so the description of the conference uses the term "related fields" to create just enough of a loophole to justify anything. My chocolate bar has the ingredients listed on the wrapper, and someone in government may even eat one during their lunch break, so Hershey's could make an appearance at the conference under those rules.
The point is that it appears to be an advocacy event, and if it isn't it needs to be renamed at the very least.
And for the last time, THE MS SPEECH ISN'T going to be A DEBATE! Will people please stop being all philosophical about it and read the conference schedule! Bruce Perens offered to throw the Fair Use people a bone by "letting" them ask a few questions after Matusow's speech. And that's only after a lot of loud complaining.
Please pay attention and stop trying to make yourselves look all enlightened. Save it for the next high-minded Slashdot topic.
Some of you may be old enough to remember Don Novello, a comedy writer who created the character Father Guido Sarducci, gossip reporter for the Vatican newspaper.
One of his comedy routines was called "the five minute university" -- he explained that everything you remember from college five years after graduating can be summed up in one sentence. For example, Economics is reduced to the statement "supply and demand." All that's left of your Spanish will be "Como esta usted?"
The five-minute university accepts your tuition, gives you your degree, but then says that you must tell no one for the next four years or they will find you and kill you. Four years later you are free to pretend you spent all that time in school.
With that in mind, here is the twenty second wrapup of Jason Matusow's Shared Source speech and the Software Choice group's presentation:
Matusow: Shared Source is good; Open Source is bad.
The Software Choice guy: Governments should not be required to use Open Source software. OSS must compete against closed source products.
(When the Software Choice guy says "compete" he and his friends start giggling and elbowing each other in the ribs.)
Maybe we can print that on a handbill in a variety of different languages and hand it out at the entrance of the conference. That way Microsoft will be fairly represented and we can have a nice advocacy event without them.
You forgot the original goal of Microsoft -- to demonstrate to everyone in thew world that a dork extraordinaire Bill Gates is mentally superior to everyone else.
Just a goal to make the company richer does not require series of crusades against everything advanced in computing like what Microsoft did over most of its history.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
As much as I would like to joke about holding the Microsoft speaker down and tattooing a penguin on his butt, I guess I had better be a little more serious.
:-)
We should allow Microsoft make whatever points on the subject that they like. However, be advised that their speakers will most likely be very polished, professional, and masters of FUD. I'm pretty sure that they will hold mock speeches with mock after speech question and answer sessions.
We should be prepared every bit as much as Microsoft to shoot down their FUD with bullets of reality. I will not be able to attend but I hope that the people who do will examine Microsoft's positions ahead of time and think about the different ways that they will try to spin their FUD. Come up with good questions that will expose their 'shared source' for what it is. Be courteous, polite, and ruthlessly informed. And if that fails, tattoo penguins on their butts!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
You seem to be confusing the everyday reality of people who work for Microsoft with the corporate entity of Microsoft itself.
The monolithic Microsoft that makes the decisions and spends the money is opposed to Open Source Software. Just today Bill Gates, the closest thing this entity has to a face, stated at a conference (which I didn't get to speak at, by the way) that if the government requires open code standards in its procurement they will suffer badly.
The dominant culture of Microsoft is to compete and to win at all costs. This has been documented reasonably well. Sure, the cleaning staff at the Redmond campus and the developers you know may not feel that way, but the people who make the operational decisions live it and breathe it. It can be argued that they like winning even more than the money thay make.
Bottom Line: Microsoft doesn not qualify to be in the conference, except in the broadest most lawyerly loophole interpretation of the event. Fight them some other time, preferably on their dime.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
If this is how to gain public acceptance, let's not.
As good as your marketing skills may be, and clearly they are professional, your understanding of what the goal of Free Software is misses the mark.
Without addressing Open Source, which is another breed of cat entirely from Free Software, the goal of FSF, as I understand it (I'm not a member personally) isn't world domination of the software market. It's freedom. That's not a goal that can be reached by your suggested methods.
Free Software must appeal to the heart, to a man's natural yearning for what is just and fair and good for the individual and the community's welfare. It looks not at short-term benefits, not at making a killing or beating someone else to the top of the marketing mountain, but instead asks and tries to answer the question: does it affect a culture if I release software that is proprietary or if I release it as free software, free as in speech, not beer? Which brings out a man's better side? In that sense, it's a moral issue they are raising, not a marketing strategy.
So, while some of your suggestions might be useable to a point (a suit doesn't hurt), the overall theme is just so far off the mark that it flops to the ground and just lays there lifeless.
One other thing, RMS has said publicly that he isn't a Communist. Free software isn't about giving away software free,though you can if you want to; making money from it is fine. FSF sells GNU software, actually, themselves on www.gnu.org.
It's impressive that you went to so much trouble to think this through and post it, though, but maybe a little more research from the perspective of what the actual goals are would be good. Then your skills could prove very valuable indeed.
My ex-wife's uncle used to get elected over and over again for city councilman, even though he never contributed a damned thing.
He would do something really stupid a few weeks before an election, like fall asleep drunk in a parking lot. It would make it into the papers (of course). Then when people went to the polls it was a case of, "I read about this guy in the paper, but I don't remember what about. I will vote for him!"
Interesting, eh?
I know what the Internet is, what the hell is this Interweb business?!
Maybe they should consider taking an Open Source representative and give them a say the next time they jet to some third world country to ply their wares...?
After we have listened to them, we should ask for an opportunity for an open source advocate to present at the next MVP Summit, perhaps countering Bill's view of the world. I wonder if MicroSoft would accept.
The way I see it, closed and open source are two competing software development models. In order to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each model, you must compare and constrast the two. One of the best ways of doing this is to let experts in each model speak about the benifiets of their models and the weaknesses of the others.
However, this isn't about which software development model is better. Somewhere along the road the idea that closed source software is morally incorrect arose. As an aside, where did this idea come from and why do so many people take it to heart? There is no reason whatsoever to think of open and closed source development methods in terms of morals.
The problems with Microsoft are not that they are closed source. It's that they are a monopoly. That is a very different topic and completely unrelated to closed and open source. To not invite Microsoft to a conference based on their actions as a monopoly is one thing. But it makes absolutly no sense to exclude them because they choose a competing software development model.
Remember, the best person to point out faults in your methods is your competitor! Make use of this opportuninty. This is software creation, a trade, not religion endeavour.
I think it's inappropriate, but not in the context of free speech or even a balanced argument, simply , I have forked out my money to go to a conference on a specific subject to learn about that subject. Why invite someone to speak who is basically - Off Topic. It's comparable to a truck manufacturer talking trucks at a high performance car show.
They certainly don't need charity, why is the open source community prepared to donate resources to a company who is not prepared to back the community.
They certainly do not need charity.
I might remind people that Microsoft is a convicted criminal in the U.S with punishment still pending.
Yet here we see the community dolling out resources with some sort of naive commitment to being fair. Would you expect them to be "fair".
Consumers should take every opportunity to punish Microsoft for thier ANTI CONSUMER practices, including denying them the chance to speak. Are we expecting to hear reasonable solutions or the company line?
What, do you think they will speak in YOUR interests?
As far as Linux Advocacy, I know few geeks that are great at marketing. And while Linux takes the "geekiness" heat of consumer perceptions off OSS, the headway that OSS makes is never satisfying. Primary because of branding.
Case in point, McDonalds. Internationally recognised, probably not the best quality, but no one ever got sick eating it (least in the short term) and it tastes ok. Now subject that same scenairo to Windows and you see how branding works.
M$ stopped mentioning Linux and Open Source for marketing reasons - they were advertising Linux every time someone from redmond said "Linux"
It is that strength of branding that OSS needs to aquire to move forward. So far the best people at that in the GPL/Linux arena is Redhat.
Redhat have a solid brand. A solid Brand represents longevity to a consumer, after that the quality of the product is how the consumer forms their opinions.
For example someone, want's to buy a computer, thinks hey "P.C" (IBM's - branding), hey "Windows". Go shell out the cash and take the computer home. They turn it on have their "user experience" and all is good for a while. Soon after they XPerience problems with thier "computer" (how many consumers say they're having a problem with windows - brand strength again), then after a while they say thay "want to buy a new computer cause this one is broken" - and so it goes.
If GNU/Linux advocacy is to be effective it must create a groundswell of interest from consumers. As Linux is redily available for free, advocacy on the part of knowledgable linux users (ok -geeks) could take the form of getting over your "knowledge elitism" and helping people in public forums, user groups - even (especially) the local computer shops. In return you will learn valuable inter-personal skills. Everytime I have done this it has been appreciated and users I converted seem to like it once the "hard part" of installation is done.
I think that's more pragmatic than kooky point of view. Thanks for reading
But if I have learned ANYTHING in my dealings with the computer industry, I have learned that schmooze sells. You can have the best of the uppity best, but if you don't have the suit's ear you leave with your tail between your legs.
Microsoft at our events lends credibility to them. Think of the brand recognition of Microsoft. The fact the Microsoft is speaking at our events, two of them this year, should be a sign that we are becoming mainstream.
Now what we don't want to hear is that mainstream isn't all about tech. It's all about suits, facades, and maneuvering. This is where the sausage is made people. It isn't pretty, but it is part of the natural growth process of any movement.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
If data formats are open and well-documented, then users are also free to migrate to other applications as either applications or needs change. Unfortunately, Microsoft has already stated a public position against such open formats. Presumably because, no matter how it is done, it will cut the legs from under the existing revenue model for MS-Office.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Okay, I searched the discussion for similar keywords, and I didn't quite find the point I make here.
Conferences lend credibility to the viewpoints of those who present at the conference. In fact, conferences are, in some ways, a way to highlight the ideas and organizations that best represent the conference subjects. In this way, conferences are not about free speech and open discource; they are about promoting "best" or "most interesting" ideas, practices, opinions, and organizations.
Here's my point: If Microsoft presents at the conference, the conference lends some credibility to Microsoft's role in Open Source Software in Government. Even if the conference goes poorly for Microsoft, Microsoft is still seen as participating in the process by conference observers: namely, the US government and the media at large. Whether you agree or disagree with Microsoft's position or ideas on the topic, the conference lends credibility to Microsoft's voice on the topic. In that sense, the conference is well advise to carefully consider whether to extend this stamp of credibility.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
> Hm, Copernicus found himself in a similar dilemma. Only it wasn't zealotry he was charged with, it was heresy.
I suspect you mean s/Copernicus/Gallileo/
Copernicus died the day his book was published. But there is evidence that Gallileo received some negative attention from the authorities during his lifetime.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Maybe, just maybe, it's possible that we shouldn't be looking to force everybody to use either open or closed source, but that there is a happy medium somewhere between these two standpoints. After all, some server tasks run better on Linux boxes, some are better on Windows boxes.
I realise it's a radical concept but you may also want to imagine that not all software can be made for free and that realistically you do have to pay for some software.
You don't have to install it, just burn to CD and boot. "It just works."
Despite all the politricks, legalities and bottom sniffing: One cannot debate with only one side there. That's all. That's it.
I disagree. Their goal is to make sure stock prices keep going up *A LOT*, not just that they go up at all. And that *is* in conflict with open source. The way to make the most money the fastest is to impose artificial scarcity, and that doesn't work with open source. It's not impossible to make money with open source, but it will not be on the extravagant level Microsoft is used to seeing, because you end up only being able to charge what software is actually worth, and their mechanisms for artificially inflating the price beyond that are gone.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
What _reason_ is there to ask for "an open mind" towards M$?
Think about it for a second:
Linux always tried to be tolerant towards M$. There's SAMBA, which is only made to be compatible to M$ proprietary Network protocols. And it's not just a one-way migration solution like M$' own Netware Kit for NT, no, it's fully compatible! There's versions of every cool Linux-Software and every Framework or environment available: GIMP, GNUstep, cygwin, VLC, cdrecord, OpenOffice and what not.
And what's there from the other side? Nothing! N O T H I N G ! To the contrary: They don't just even not port their own products and APIs to Linux, no, they *also* make it extra hard for their developers to do so by focussing on proprietary BS like DirectX and a load of other APIs *and* they call Linux "cancer" "antiamerican" etc. and have special task forces to fight it (hello Brian Valentine How's your Tattoo?)
Just give me _one_ f*cking reason why they earned the Linux-community's toerance and should be listened to! Just one!
Yeah right, be tolerant towards these guys! Gee, i wonder why the Allies weren't tolerant towards Hitler back then? Afterall he did deserve to be listened to and tolerated just as much as M$!
He steals money from people for crap software & os. M$ is built on stolen warez and concepts.
His crappy software is responsible for spreading terror tools like viruses, worms and trojans.
M$ crapware will be to blame when the ENTIRE Internet goes down and the economy suffers when commerce can not conduct properly!
Look at the damage caused by the $lapper worm!
Gate$ terrorizes people into using his crappy products. I work on PC's. I talk to hundreds of people on a regular basis. They ALL use M$ because they believe that that's all there is.
I try to inform them that there IS an alternative but they don't want to listen.
They are so enslaved that they can not imagine life without being enslaved.
Like a circus elephant that is kept on a chain all of it's life. After 20 years or so you can remove the chain but the elephant will remain in place just as if still chained!
People are brainwashed into believing that you can not purchase a computer without winbloz preinstalled. They are afraid to cut their bonds.
And they live in constant terror that their system will;
1. crash
2. get hacked
3. get virused
4. someone spy on them.
5. tell on them for warez.
They should be afraid because all of that is true..