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.
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....
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
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!
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.
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...".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.*
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.
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.
OK. And how is everyone to know that it's a poison pill, unless we discuss it directly with Microsoft in the open and get them to say as much? Until that's done, your "poison pill" is just theory and hearsay - it means nothing.
That's the beauty of free speech - it lets the villians show that they're a villian. Then when you know that thier cause is going to hurt you in some way, you can avoid helping them in thier cause or take appropriate steps to counter thier cause. If you shut them up, how do you know they have ill intent?
I say drag Microsoft into the conference kicking and screaming if needs be, so we can detail to others exactly what the poison in the pill is, and what to look for so everyone can avoid even putting that pill in thier mouth, let alone swallow it.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
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.
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
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
... Open Source advocates get some time at Microsoft's government conferences.
Miko O'Sullivan
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
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.
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
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.
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...
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.