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.
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.
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.
What better place to have a discussion about the relative merits of Open and Shared Source than at an open source conference? There's probably no better way to get lots of people who care about it together at once.
You can't prove or convince anyone without reasonable and open debate, and you can't have an honest debate without fairly representing both sides of an issue.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
... 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
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.
Personally, I'd love to be there to witness the heckling, if nothing else.
But if Microsoft pulls off a good presentation on "Shared Source", it should be of interest to all. There are the elements of competition (did I say that in the same sentence as Microsoft?) and commerce in software. Coders must earn a living too and I don't think the OSS [business] model has gelled yet.
Dare I say it, perhaps microsoft could offer some insight on how too make money with open (or "shared") source? I'm certain the topic has been bothering them for some time now, so I'm sure they've some thoughts on it.
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.
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.
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.
Why can't the person organizing and running the conference be allowed to decide who gets invited to speak and present?
If you want to have a "Paunchy Pale Perl Preacher's Pow-Wow", and happen to invite a deeply-tanned agnostic who programs in Python to speak - that's your right. Why are we second-guessing someone who's putting on a conference for government customers to meet Open Source Software up close and personal? If Tony thinks inviting M$ to speak is valid, maybe he has a point. After all, he's smart enough to get a gig at a place called the Cyberspace Policy Institute - he's probably also smart enough to realize the value of putting M$ and OSS up against one another in a public forum. It's NOT just a conference on Open Source - it's Open Source Software in Government. Speaking as a contracting creature, it's tough to sell - easier today than ten years ago, but non-trivial, whereas if you say you're buying Oracle, IBM, or M$, they just complain about the price - you won't get strange looks and questions about whether that will still be there in four years, and (valid) questions about lifecycle support.
Read his commentary and ponder - do you want to be a member of a group that won't even consider listening to members of opposing groups? That way lies extinction....
I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
we should totally be open to listening to alternative points of view, but is an open source conference really the proper venue for it?
As others have pointed out, it's probably the only place that open source and MS will get compared in a fair and factual manner, or at least as fair and factual as open source zealotry will allow. I doubt open source gets brought up as anything but Satanic Evilness to be Feared and Fought at MS-sponsored events.
But the point I'd like to make is that open source zealots should not oppose MS participation in open source events for one very important reason: in the disputes over the merits of Windows and open source OS like Linux, the open source advocates have the better argument. In any propaganda conflict, those who have the better argument should take every opportunity to contrast their arguments with the opposition's arguments, even if it's on their own dime.
An analogous situation can be found in the drug policy reform movement. When you visit a web site sponsored by a reform group, such as the Media Awareness Project, you'll find many links to drug war propaganda, and to the opinions of those who support the continuation of the war. But if you go to sites that support the government position, such as the Antidrug you'll find no links to the opposition. This is a reflection of the relative strengths of the arguments on both sides. Drug policy reformers want their opponents to be freely heard, because their arguments are so profoundly flawed that they help the reformers, rather than hurting.
I personally believe the same to be true of the MS vs. open source debate.