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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes! This is the perfect place for it. There are several reasons 1) The inability for the open source to have an open mind will only prove to many industries that the opensource is not the way to go because they are too set in their ways to be adaptable to their needs 2) If Ms really has such a bad argument, it will be out in the open in such a way they cannot cover it up 3) If they do have valid points, it allows those who have the ability to change the opensource to understand and change the progress of the movement or counter the propaganda before it sets into the corporate culture. If you refuse to listen to those who have differeing opinions then you will be seen as intolerant and unworthy of attention, regardless if you are right or not. It is in the best interest of the community to allow them into the conference.
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.
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.
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