Slashdot Mirror
Andreesssen: Why Open Source Will Boom - in 103 Words
An anonymous reader writes "You gotta love Marc Andreessen's 12 reasons why Open Source is set to boom: can anyone use fewer than 103 words and still adduce as many reasons as he does?"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Because it is documented - documentation is just as important as being open source. If the behavior of MS software was fully and accurately documented, it would be much more stable, as programmers could account for every situation.
1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
Anybody who can exhibit a counterexample can say this is not true.
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
Okay, that's true, but meaningless. Who cares?
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
Again, who cares?
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
This can be proven wrong, and you'll look stupid.
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
I really take exception to this, although it may be true. I think it's true that many open-source devs are europeans who have green-ish attitudes, it's immaterial, unhelpful, and boring. I for one don't wish to be associated with this and I raise an eyebrow at Andreesen for thinking this. If Kerry thought looking anti-American is going to help him, or you think it will help Linux, you are wrong. It is not going to resonate with people who aren't already on your side.
#6 - #12 are all fine, true, okay, and useful.
No, I'm not trolling. Don't most of those reasons also apply to the BSDs?
status is failure. status is failure
Am I the only person who can't seem to understand what that is meant to mean?
...) [outside of SCO!].
Linux et al. are international efforts. They are not made/control by an American company (MS, Apple, IMB, SUN,
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Foreign governments will tend to use Linux, and encourage their industries to use it, to avoid dependency on software from the evil USA?
Seriously though, governments would be well advised to avoid dependency on software so heavily subject to the control of any other country's government, it shouldn't depend on anti-American sentiment in particular.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Most reports I have heard say that most people from countries outside of the US view many US products (McDonalds, Microsoft, Nike, others) as international producs and don't really associate them with the US. Is that BS?
I'd also like to know if that statement is just a knee-jerk statement or if there is any proof to back it up.
"Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
So does Solaris, and it HAS for a while.
> 3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
Most users don't care about the development platform of what they use.
> 4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
Going to be?
> 5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
I've heard this argument before. Could we be setting ourselves up for an anti-anti-American backlash?
> 6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
Read: OSS users are snobs. And snobs about something dweeby. More negative than positive.
> 8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
Fine for the server market.
> 12. "It's free."
So far this has helped on the server, but not the desktop.
> 11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
This might be the strongest one.
Google confirms: Ruby is the world's most beloved programm
I'm not saying I agree. In fact, I disagree. However, many, many people say it to themselves every time they download a piece of software and it doesn't run because it needs to be re-compiled on their platform. So then they go to Best Buy and purchase something that runs, but crashes, but at least it runs.
With the exception of one or two things on the list, this stuff has been true about Linux for a long time. So why does it suddenly mean Linux is going to boom?
Two things will make or break Linux: a> Ease of use and b> Applications
The first, ease of use, has been a problem for Linux for a long time and only in the last year or two have people really started to address this. I think with time, Linux will boom, but there's still a lot of work to do.
There are several reasons.
1) American companies have been known for putting back-doors in programs so that organizations like the NSA could easily break in if needed. (Remember the infamous Lotus Notes story?)
2) America has put back doors in other software that caused nasty things to happen.
In short, other countries don't trust us.
There are plenty of reasons why countries outside the U.S. might consider Open Source, and yes, a couple of them are mostly about dislike for the U.S. itself:
"We don't want to send America one cent that we don't have to."
"The NSA might be pushing code into Windows that can be used to compromise our security."
"Support your local developers."
"If Microsoft doesn't support our language, we're screwed. If Linux doesn't, we can fix that."
"Maybe they saved our asses in World War II, but they're still acting like a bunch of pricks. Screw 'em."
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
To put it simply, in a way a lot of Slashdotters would understand is that the way a lot of the world sees America, is the way a lot of us see Microsoft.
Anti American Sentiment: a one act play
Boss ( a politician/buisnessman/citizen ) - American goverment opresses my country economically through clever means such the IMF and WTO. Americans go to war with Iraq without that agreement or support of the mejority of the U.N.. American-based transnational corporations opress my countries laborers and attempt to subvert my goverment to achieve their own ends. On top of this I have to hand over bucketloads of cash to Microsoft to pay for their shoddy software?
Assistant: Wait, why dont we just use linux?
Boss: linux?
Assistant: yes! its a free operating system that works just as well or better than windows. With it we also get a replacement for Office, also free! On top of that it is owned by no big american corporation so not only do we save money, we hurt microsoft and the american economy by switching!
Boss: Brilliant!
the end
moral: The united states is an empire and acts as such, which, historically, will always result in pissing of the rest of the world, creating anti-american sentiment. Anybody who thinks America attacked Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people needs to brush up on their international politics.
In case you hadn't noticed every single example of countries, cities, companies, schools and government departments moving to Linux have always cited one and only one reason for moving.
Because they're looking to cut costs and Linux is free.
You know Linux has more advantages, I know Linux has more advantages but they don't appear to ever be quoted by these companies.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
> "The Internet is powered by open source."
Like Cisco or Nortel?
>"The Internet is the carrier for open source."
It's also the carrier of porn and illegal copies of propritary software.
>"The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
It is also the platform through which propritary software is developed.
>"It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
Not nescessarily. Most insecurities are due to looming release dates. There is also a tradeoff between usability and security. Which is better? Depends on your mission.
>"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Not sure about this. I just got back from Kuait and there are literally hundreds of street vendors there selling propritary software.
>"Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
Like the respect between the Reiser group and Linus? Why did it take so long to get that patch added? Those two crews showed as much respect as a couple of kids yelling "Did not! Did too!"
>"Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
Uuh, not sure what he means by this. I'm assuming he means IBM. What about Sun, MS, Adobe, and other closed source "Giants"?
>"Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
So does Windows. And when you are buying a $10k server, $200 for Windows doesn't even figure into it.
>"Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
You have a winner here. But imbeded Windows and QNX are also players. This marker is not usually concerned with backwards compatibility and is very volitale in regards to the underlying kernel they choose. If x86 chips become prevalant, expect Windows to dominate.
>"There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
This has always been the case. Lots of companies need some app that custom-built. They don't really care where the source comes from. Since the app is rarely redistributed, they have no requirements to release their modifications.
>"Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
Not really. There is a percived lean to newer technologies in non-critical areas. Expect MS to respond to their concerns with newer server technologies that are hardened for special applications.
>"It's free."
But it can cost a ton while you have an outage and the one guy that knows about it is in Jamaca with his family on holiday. Most big projects are not like that, but you never know... MS shares the love. There is rarely one person who holds all the keys to a project.
And remember, if Linux truly takes over, MS will just use the kernel and bolt on a propritary installer (YAST) and a propritary desktop (Java Desktop) and then crush the competition like they always have.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
"Only a fool thinks price and value are the same." - Antonio Machado
That holds true until price is zero, then all you need is acceptable quality and performance. Also notice that I did not say FREE but FREEdom. There is a HUGE difference.
In the late 90's it was once said by venture capital types looking at putting money in to a software company... "Is Microsoft going to develop anything like this". The reason being that "IF" they did then, even if the product sucked, it would be cheaper and then it would drive this new company out of business. Well, now instead of Microsoft, it is open source.
You don't see many new closed source Web servers being developed do you? How about any new SQL databases?
You and I would agree that if there is good quality closed source programs, and they can be cost justified, some companies will use it. That software MUST add value to the company though, and there better not be a "good enough" open source solution. Granted there are many in I.T. today that just buy whatever Microsoft/Oracle/IBM puts out, but those types are quickly being replaced, or because of cost they are "looking" at other alternatives.
In my opinion it is not a good day to be a software development shop. Too bad for all those Indian programmers out there...
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Two years ago, at my previous employer, I sat across the conference-room table from Mr. Andreessen while several of Loudcloud's salesmen and "sales engineers" literally shouted at me and the other developers and admins on the tech staff that our reliance on "shareware schemes" (the lead salesman's term for FOSS) was going to be our company's downfall and that we were fools not to let them save us. Six months later Loudcloud morphed into Opsware and got out of the enterprise hosting business. We hadn't signed their contract, either.
Maybe he was thinking counter to his salesforce even then, though that is giving him the benefit of some large doubt. I don't think he was actually thinking about anything in particular related to that meeting, since he spent most of his time checking information on his Blackberry and filling out a Federal security clearance application, and didn't participate in the meeting other than to sit there and look famous.
In any case, this story makes me laugh, only half-ruefully.
Also, since when is desire for control over one's computing systems 'anti-American sentiment' (point 5).
Bush got better grades than Gore in college and graduate school (Yale and Harvard don't forget)
Al Gore FAILED OUT of grad school twice.
Who's the moron?
You can make it 100 words by altering #2 and still make it say the same thing.
:)
2. The Internet is the carrier for open source.
to
2. The Internet carries open source.
BAM! 100 Words or Less
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
Anti-Americanism goes way back, for a lot of different reasons, many of them deserved, many not.
Past American screwups in foreign policy have left deep scars. Americans are frequently accused of imperialism. That was true in many ways, in the 1880s in Latin America and Africa (just as the rest of the world was pulling back its colonial powers).
More recently, during the Cold War America fought a variety of proxy wars with the Soviets, often backing one set of ruthless dictators against the Russian-backed ruthless dictators. These wars caused a lot of pain and grief, and because America was trying to establish client-states (or at least, keep the Soviets from establishing their client-states), it looked like more imperialism.
The CIA, in particular, is less effective fighting terrorism today than it might be because it has screwed up so badly in the past that a host of restrictions were placed on its power. It still hasn't effectively integrated its intelligence with the FBI, for example. That wall was put into place because the CIA had badly, badly misused the FBI to abuse American citizens in the 60's and 70's.
I live in America, and I'm not sure the rest of the world believes me when I say that the American people really don't want to run your country or own the world. The worst I can accuse us of is being willing to take advantage of less-developed countries, to use cheap jobs and nonexistent worker and environmental regulations to our advantage. But we don't want to colonize those countries, nor are we particulary intent on forcing them to continue those practices. We just take advantage of what we see. (I do not approve of this, mind you, and many will see this as worse than plain-old imperialism, but I'm just trying to lay out my observations as best I can.)
When Americans want to invade a foreign country, it's always out of fear. When we fear for our safety, we become aware of our strength. Other than that, we'd rather be economic than military.
Except, perhaps, for GW Bush, and his dad. The first Gulf War was clearly about oil, though we were able to play it as being about a small, oppresed country (as opposed to all those other small, oppressed, non-oil-bearing countries that we ignore). The President played it for oil, and sold it to Americans as freedom.
The same thing happened again last year. Americans, worried for their safety, were plenty ready to fight whomever the President said, with secret intelligence, was a danger. But the intelligence was wrong, or false, and the President misled America. Last time it worked, because the war was cheap, and he lied less. This time, there could be serious repercussions for American foreign policy.
But I believe that Americans, as individuals, had no interest in stealing Iraqi oil, even if the President did.
I've allowed myself to get drawn rather off-topic, so mod me down if you must, and I apologize in advance.
Open source software lowers capital barriers to market entry.
Proprietary software vendors will not create jobs for Americans:
So, ON THE WHOLE, OSS expedites job creation, MSFT et al. do not.When I had this discussion with MSFTie Rob Scoble, he wrote:
>Microsoft money does create jobs. 5000 in the
>past year alone (mine was among them).
And I replied:
This not a counterargument, because 'Microsoft money' is an aggregate of revenues from BigCos and SmallCos. My supposition is that money from SmallCos can produce more jobs if it stays in the hands of SmallCo execs/owners.
Also, when BigCos pay license fees to MSFT the net effect on American jobs creation is nil, statistically, as money moving from a BigCo to a proprietary IT BigCo is not money that becomes more likely to create American jobs as a result.
Q.E.D. :-)
That doesn't say the same thing. Andresson clearly invokes the concept of "carrier" as a "transmission vector" in the disease sense; the Internet spreads the use of open source in an infectious manner. (It's not a disease, of course; a lot of non-diseases have disease-like spreading characteristics.)
Your reformulation merely states that the Internet happens to transmit bits that are open source, without the "transmission vector" aspect. It also carries other things.
Ain't English grand? This is why I end up being so verbose, so often; if I want, I can condense many of my multi-page essays down to one dense paragraph, but I prefer that more then a handful of my readers understand what I'm saying. (Which still may not happen often, but what can you do?) You can see a lot more of this in the other Slashdot replies too; 103 words is nice, but by the time everyone is done misinterpreting and projecting onto them, one wonders if a 103-page essay wouldn't have been called for. (Of course, more words means more opportunities to misinterpret; argh!)
"The complaints about America are largely the result of American culture and history. It's not like suddenly in 2001 Bush took office and people just started having problems with America"
No, this is not true. In Europe we pretty much switched overnight from liking and respecting the US to despising it as a result of Bush's response to the terrorist attack in New York.
Hopefully you guys will get rid of the current administration soon and we can get some sanity back into world affairs.
By the time you have even heard of this software, it has been in use at several sites for many months... usually years. That is several people taking the risk of running a possibly unstable product, joining the mailing lists, sending feedback (and sometimes fixes).
I submit patches to Open Source where I can, and I use products that are labelled alpha and beta quite frequently - if they do, or have the potential to do, what I need them to. Once a product has reached critical mass (Apache, Linux, VIM) I use the software with confidence. Other's have already paid for it with thier time and energy. At that point, the cost of the software is usually in the time it takes to install and configure it with sub-standard documentation, lack of wizards, etc.
If I wasn't in IT, I would not use a lot of the stuff that I do - I know I can usually "make it work" and submit the tips/questions/fixes/how-to that are requisite in using such software in it's early phases.
> "The Internet is powered by open source."
Like Cisco or Nortel?
No, like Sendmail, or Cisco's Open Source Initiative
>"The Internet is the carrier for open source." ... who run the country :-( ).
It's also the carrier of porn and illegal copies of propritary software.
That doesn't transfer evil to (F)OSS merely by being transported the same way (except in the eyes of some people
>"The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed." ;-> )I think the point being made is about the exapandability of the of (F)OSS development style.
It is also the platform through which propritary software is developed.
(Thus associating proprietry software with pr0n and warez as you pointed out above.
>"It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
Not nescessarily. Most insecurities are due to looming release dates. There is also a tradeoff between usability and security. Which is better? Depends on your mission.
Many (F)OSS projects lack big PR departments which have an alarming tendancy to set release dates and feature lists at early stages. And usability IS improving, with the improvements in KDE/Gnome, even though the GUI is not so essential for many computing uses.
>"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Not sure about this. I just got back from Kuait and there are literally hundreds of street vendors there selling propritary software.
But how many were selling legal copies? (F)OSS software companies are often not so hurt by illegal copying as propietry software companies would be.
>"Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
Like the respect between the Reiser group and Linus? Why did it take so long to get that patch added? Those two crews showed as much respect as a couple of kids yelling "Did not! Did too!"
Surely that is an exceptional case. The job of Jobs/Wozniak/Gates is to make money for shareholders. The job of Torvalds/Stallman is to make great software (I think).
>"Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
Uuh, not sure what he means by this. I'm assuming he means IBM. What about Sun, MS, Adobe, and other closed source "Giants"?
That quotation of Newton's metaphor is a little confusing in this case. Newton (originator of quote) meant that he could start with previous scientist's public discoveries instead of wasting time having to rediscover them. (F)OSS developers can often start with bits of public existing code instead of wasting time having to reinvent them.
>"Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
So does Windows. And when you are buying a $10k server, $200 for Windows doesn't even figure into it.
He seems to be talking about disadvantages of Apple (and similar) here.
>"Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
You have a winner here. But imbeded Windows and QNX are also players. This marker is not usually concerned with backwards compatibility and is very volitale in regards to the underlying kernel they choose. If x86 chips become prevalant, expect Windows to dominate.
But (F)OSS Kernels are far more easily and cheaply trimmable and tweakable than proprietry ones. e.g. GNU/Hurd will (eventually) have modules, which can be loaded across a (e.g. mobile phone) network as needed.
>"There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
This has always been the case. Lots of companies need some app that custom-built. They don't really care where the source comes from. Since the app is rarely redistributed, they have no requirements to relea
We actually took this question to a Professor in the Education department.
We were concerned about Bon Jovi's song where he says "I'll be there for you. These five words I say to you". One person said "Ha leave it to Bon Jovi to screw that one up. It's six words." I however was convinced it was 5 words.
The whole thing got bigger than it needed to, but the professor didn't have an immediate answer.
After reviewing with some colleagues including 1 who was an attorney, the general consensus was that it was indeed 6 words. It's also a contraction, which is pronounced as 1 word, but if you diagram that sentence, you have to separate the subject and the verb.
Therefore, if you accept the decision of the Professors (and attorney), What we acutally have is Andreessen's "Why Linux will Boom in 106 words" due to the 3 contractions he used in his list.
Although, there is a good argument for either side..
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
I dont like the US for just that attitude youre showing. "We are on top of the world".
Let me explain something that a lot of people don't seem to understand. Most people in the US don't think about other countries much, not even to gloat that we are better. We worry about our own lives and let the rest of the world worry about their lives. Your dislike of the US because of the "you're just jealous" attitude is about as silly as the "you're just jealous" attitude.
America's commercially-powered government and responsibilities means its true nature isn't one of protection of people, but protection of money.
Money, in and of itself, cannot be "protected". What is being protected is individual property rights. Individual property rights impede wealth redistribution, and that is why they are hated by Leftists.
It all stems from that. America is insular because Americans want American money in America.
No, I think America is insular because it is surrounded by two politically insigificant neighbors and two oceans. The oceans have loaned to Americans much of their sense of self-reliance. I'm not talking about the American Government, I'm talking about Americans. People keep confusing the state with "the people" and it spawns all sorts of idiotic ideas (such as "The French hate Americans").
Al Qaida are after the US because the US put its troops in Saudi Arabia to launch planes into Iraq yet never took them out
That may be part of their motivation. Another part is that the US sends millions of dollars to Israel every year, and that is a thorn in the side of many Jew-hating Muslims. Another reason is that Jihad (which means "holy war" and meant that for centuries until recently when apologists have tried to redefine it as "struggle") is built into the religion itself.
It's all come to the point where you get Americans seemingly under the impression America is "better" than other countries, and that everything America does is, by very definition, "good".
This is part of almost every culture. It is not a wholly American phenomenon. I think what makes the Americans' cultural pride seem worse is the fact that America runs the world (for now).
The only thing America is better at than the rest of the world is impregnating incredibly baseless patriotism into its citizens, and gun crime.
I don't think that other nations need America to form their own patriotism, and I am interested in what you would consider to be "non-baseless" patriotism. Gun crime is part of American culture, but remember that America has more than one culture (just as France has more than one culture -- ask the Euskadi or Bretons), and some sub-cultures are more prone to gun crime than are others. To examine that question is not politically correct, so it doesn't get talked about much.
I think the one thing that America does better than other countries is capitalism. I believe that it is unbridled capitalism which has made America the most powerful country in the world. That, and a strong military and smart leaders which allowed us to put military bases in other countries -- the ramifications of which elude most Americans' NASCAR and College Football-soaked brains. Bread and circuses, anyone?
America isn't about freedom, liberty or justice - it's about stock, shareholders and dividends.
I agree with you that America isn't particularly in love with freedom any more. Look at drug seizure laws (bye bye 4th amendment), forced self-incrimination on tax returns (bye bye 5th amendment), the FCC (bye bye 1st amendment), the list goes on and on. I know that individual property rights probably make you mad. They make a lot of people mad. "Why should someone else have so much when I need so much?" Such is the basis of Leftism. How do you measure need? (Answer: you can't. It's based in emotion.)
I think that's what pisses most people off.
I think what pisses most people off is that America is on top, and they don't like American culture. A culture that one dislikes does not deserve to be on top, right?
It would be like if Jesus came back and decided to be a slave trader.
Argument by analogy.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The most dangerous opponent you can ever have is someone who has nothing left to lose.
This is the exact problem that the governments of the world face when they go up against terrorists, especially terrorists that are willing to kill themselves.
In a similar vein, this is w2hat Microsoft and all the other for-pay software companies face when they go toe-to-toe with OSS developers. There is a multitude of college and experienced kids that are willing to donate their blood, sweat, and tears and completely give away their effort for free. New open-source developers are recruited everyday, just like suicide bombers.
How can a company, even Microsoft, beat them over the long haul? Technically, they can't because OSS will last forever, and bad quarters, accounting scandals, or corporate greed can't take them down.
The only way they can is through legislation, like forcing software providers to assume liability security violations, and patents.
If we let legislation pass that would force companies to assume liability for security violations, then all OSS is doomed. Some people have suggested that OSS projects be exempt from such a law, but do you really think that Microsoft's lobbyists would allow for that? If individual programmers were liable for security problems, this would definitely kill OSS.
The second issue is patents, and companies like Microsoft could very well corner the market on some key piece of software that would squeeze out OSS developers. Although it seems all-but-inevitable, Europe neeeds to do whatever it can to avoid getting US-style patent laws that patent both software and business processes, otherwise OSS will be mired in more lawsuits and less programming.
As much as we hate the idea, US'ers own everything, have most of the wealth (therefore power) in the world, and do so by exploiting their hegemony (as did the British against whom the US'ers rebelled for that very reason).
If it were as simple as the leader of the US remaining the leader of the US and minding his own business, no one outside the US would care much who the leader was.
But this is the problem isn't it? The Leader of the US styles himself the "Leader of the free world" and genuinely believes it. I don't remember a "Leader of the free world" election, which makes him the "dictator of the oppressed world". While preaching like a missionary to the savages about democracy and open markets, Bush's machine imposes protectionist duties on imports, invades countries at whim, implants dictators, removes them, etc.
You can't think that the leader of the US has no impact on the rest of the world. Who is elected in that country has a direct impact on everyone.
That's why we hate him.
Ohhh! Pay Dirt! A pair of half-eaten choco-pants!
Anti-Americanism goes way back, for a lot of different reasons, many of them deserved, many not.
It does - but everyone was very positive about the USA at the time of the first Gulf War. The good will from those times has not just evaporated, it's reversed.
I don't think the average Joe on the streets of Europe knows anything about
American imperialism in the 1880's.
I live in America, and I'm not sure the rest of the world believes me when I say that the American people really don't want to run your country or own the world.
I certainly believe that. Most Americans are EXTREMELY ill-informed about world events. (I recall an incident at a Sonic's drive-through: "I love your accent! Where are you from?" - "I'm from England" - "Oh...So what language do you speak there?"...OK - that was a cheap shot!)
But the US media doesn't like to impart uncomfortable images of America in the world. Making people uncomfortable makes them tune out - and that sells less soap powder.
It's really difficult for Americans to find out about the real issues that the rest of the world cares about. Heck - most of them think that everyone except the Arabs and the French still love America!
The worst I can accuse us of is being willing to take advantage of less-developed countries, to use cheap jobs and nonexistent worker and environmental regulations to our advantage.
I don't think that's it either. I'm sure British, French and German companies do much the same kinds of exploitation.
But I believe that Americans, as individuals, had no interest in stealing Iraqi oil, even if the President did.
Yep. I agree.
I don't believe that Americans as individuals are responsible for ANY of the problems that the rest of the world has with America. I think that most thinking people outside of the USA don't hate Americans as individuals.
Big business and worse government are the things people can't stand. What I think Europeans don't generally understand is just how ill-informed people here in the USA are about that.
What's *so* distressing is that there isn't a way out of that. Once people only see events through the lens of the media (which is owned by big business) - they vote on the basis of what they see and are influenced by advertising campaigns that are paid for by...guess what...big business again. This makes it VERY hard for America to get the government that it truly needs.
Take something like Global Warming. The US media broadcasts very mixed messages about this "It's not proven", "Fixing pollution will wreck the economy" - that kind of bullshit. The government is in the pockets of people who are quite anxious to sell more oil - and honking great SUV's - so THEY aren't going to fix it.
The citizens who COULD fix it - either by buying smaller cars - or by voting out government who won't impose the necessary car efficiency laws - don't even believe there is a problem! I simply cannot believe how almost every American I talk to denies that Global Warming is even *real*!!! It's not because they are stupid or uncaring - it's because they are being cut off from the truth.
The rest of the civilised world isn't (yet) under such constraints - so most Europeans are driving more appropriate vehicles and voting in governments who want to do something about the problem. When they look to America - they just can't believe how people here could be so STUPID as to not want to do something about it.
If it were just one issue - this would be overwhelmed by the fact that Americans are actually a pretty reasonable, nice people with good intentions. But it's not just one issue. Scarcely a day goes by without something like the USA being the *ONLY* country in the entire world who refused to sign the anti-land-mine treaty! Ack!
www.sjbaker.org
No. Tony Blair is on your side. The majority of sane British people think Bush is one of the biggest retards ever born, never mind definitely the biggest retard ever to hold office.
(Case in point, the other day he appeared on BBC News saying "There is no middle ground between good and evil". WTF? Even 8 year olds have a more sophisticated weltanschaaung than that! Somebody send the man to a high school Ethics lesson. Even 12 year olds, when presented with a classic 'moral quandry' scenario, notice within about 5 minutes that there is almost nothing but middle ground.)
OTOH, the majority of sane Brits probably also have a general affection for the American people, culture, etc, and an appreciation that democratic capitalism is the worst system - except for all the others. This was the same feeling before Bush, the same during Bush, and will be the same after him.