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.
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....
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 )
Cheers,
Jeremy
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
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.
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.
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.*
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.
"it means we have the resources and ability to help you 10 years from now when you're having trouble."
So what MS rep do I call about problems with MS Mail or Windows 95?
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.
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
Well, I guess you gotta take the best you can get...the devilish one that listens to no opposing viewpoints and the devilish one that listens to all viewpoints, ignorant or otherwise...it's your choice.
I do actually agree wholeheartedly. Quite frankly, I'm glad I don't have to make decisions about whether they're invited to conferences, or allowed to attend at all.
Well, this goes back to the "naive attitude" thing. People _can_ be manipulated into feeling things they otherwise wouldn't feel. Microsoft is extremely good at this, they've displayed their proficiency time and again. A good example is the truism, "lies, damn lies, and statistics."
The point is that you can dupe perfectly intelligent people into acting a certain way or believing a certain viewpoint, when later on in hindsight they'll say, "geeze, all the evidence was there, why didn't I see it?"
Of course, if MS does convince people, based on honest-to-goodness merits and whatnot, good for them. I don't wish the destruction of Microsoft, I'd rather a nice, healthy balance with lots of choices and alternatives for everybody :) That will, unfortunately, require a changed Microsoft. (IBM is one of the companies I most admire. In fact, I have quite the unhealthy respect for them. They are just a corporation after all. But they've been incredibly good citizens, by and large, for the last ten or fifteen years. That was a truly remarkable turnaround, and they've done so much good for the industry since ... if MS can pull the same, I'd be more than happy.)
Yeah, like I said above. I'm not interested in seeing the total destruction of Microsoft, per se. What you saw me reacting to was the kind of attitude that can so easily result in the destruction of FOSS, were it held by enough people.
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
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
The problem there is that Microsoft products don't have to stand on their merit. Microsoft uses sleazy tactics (exclusive contracts, etc) to lock people into buying them.
I'm not saying we should sink to their level, just that head-to-head competition isn't possible.
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
We all know Microsoft has done a lot of criminal activity, so why should it surprise you that:
a) We continue to look at the negatives
b) There should still be so many negatives
This seems only natural to me. Let Microsoft have it's praise where it is due. Most people think, for example, that their Office software is actually quite good. I don't often see a slashdotter claiming the contrary.