Slashdot Mirror
When Think Tanks Attack
x1048576 writes "The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is only one of a dozen different think tanks that have attacked Open Source. Why are all these think tanks so down on Open Source? Well, the Small Business Survival Committee is concerned that using open source will expose small business to the risk of lawsuits. Citizens Against Government Waste is concerned that the government might waste money on Open Source. Defenders of Property Rights is concerned that Open Source might be a threat to intellectual property rights. However, I was able to detect a common theme to all their criticism. They all seem to be funded by Microsoft."
If you have a web page, make a link to thes /tanks.html
page where the names of all these `institutes'
and their common funding appears:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/blog/computer
If enough of us do this, the page above might outgoogle the very frontpages of their sites.
Linux most important problem is that people don't know about it and that people don't know that it can solve their problem at all.
Microsoft is now solving both problems for us.
Yes, I know that PHBs are in general pretty dumb, but instead of not even considering OpenSource, hundreds of TCO-studies about Linux and Windows will make sure they will:
I personally thank Microsoft for that free advertizing and see it as an act of desperation.
From the article:
"As unlikely as this might seem to the skeptic, the National Security Agency (NSA), that coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to protect U.S. information systems and produce foreign intelligence information, made the folly of developing GPL-licensed code to improve the Linux operating system. After reading the terms of the Linux GPL, the NSA realized they needed to post this enhancement to the Internet in source code form for the world to see. Unbelievably, any person with a PC and an Internet connection can now logon to the NSA?s website and print out the blueprint for NSA s Security Enhanced Linux software."
This is just wrong. NSA had no requirement to distribute the source since they were using it all in house. But since the people who work at these places are on the mission of creating disinformation, they obviously would ignore this:
From http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/info/faq.cfm:
"Does NSA favor open source software?
NSA initiatives in enhancing software security cover both proprietary and open source software, and we have successfully used both proprietary and open source models in our research activities. NSA's work to enhance the security of software is motivated by one simple consideration: Use our resources as efficiently as possible to give NSA's customers the best possible security options in the most widely employed products. The objective of the NSA research program is to develop technologic advances that can be shared with the software development community through a variety of transfer mechanisms. NSA does not favor or promote any specific software product or business model. Rather, NSA is promoting enhanced security."
It seems to me that NSA's intentions and reasons can be inferred from that above statement quite easily. But if these think tanks are being used solely for propaganda then I'm not all that surprised.
It would be different with think tanks because they are not trying to be unbiased agents of the truth. Instead, they are lobbiests trying to acheive goals in a specific area. The funds they receive don't need to be disclosed because it should be obvious that they are from source on a single side of an issue.
Incidentally, if you look at other large sponsors of these agencies, you'll see other funding sources they have in common besides Microsoft. It's not like MS is the sole, driving force behind these organizations.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
There was an interesting exchange between the Competitive Enterprise Institute which claims Linux is unsuitable for government, business use and Julian Sanchez from the Cato Institute, who thinks government should consider OSS if it fits their needs.
the link quotes Citizens Against Government Waste as saying: "Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive. Acquisition costs commonly represent only a small percentage of the total cost of ownership. Maintenance, training and support are often more expensive with open source than proprietary software.
Imagine the state DMV being responsible for programming the software that runs its computers. Every little problem would require an outside consultant, racking up fees and slowing down services."
Every little problem already does require an outside consultant. I work for a large government agency, and, quite frankly, there are consultants galore needed to support Windows 2000 and Windows XP. The Exchange servers go down with frequency, as does web access which is controlled through a SQL powered proxy server(which crashes), not to mention IIS, which gets kicked in the nuts every time a new virus comes out. Not only is an army of permanent government employees needed to maintain this very unstable network, but they hire literally hundreds of consultants to provide tech support for every department, and even more to ensure wider network stability.
When I need something done for my computer, I don't call the regular tech support, but the consultant working on location, because he/she is always more knowledgable and competent. And we're talking about an agency that only uses Linux when someone illegally installs it to test LAMP.
Do you not understand the difference between saying "most office workers only need x" and "everyone only needs x"?
Anyway, PeopleSoft is porting its stuff to Linux. SAP runs on Linux. As does Hyperion. So what exactly is this problem linux development faces again?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Here's a Very cool site which uncovers the connection between corporate donations and think tanks. It would be really interesting to see a similar graphical map of Microsoft's influence. The designer of this site came up with an innovative way to visualize special interest connections.
You'll be hard pressed to find a "stink tank" that would agree with you. They do claim unbiased analysis. If they weren't trying to at least project the image of being unbiased agents of the truth, they wouldn't be much use would they? By witholding disclaimers in their articles as to who funds them, they're liars and they know it. I'm sure they'd even deny the watered down term of propagandist. Even Slashdot will conscientiously admit to the source of an article being from or involving a parent company to acknowledge the possibility of a conflict of interest. That shows Slashdot is a more honest than these loser "analists".
However, if they aren't for the truth, what are they for? I mean, has anyone stopped to ask what is a "think tank" anyways? Here's a couple definitions.
Incidentally, if you look at other large sponsors of these agencies, you'll see other funding sources they have in common besides Microsoft. It's not like MS is the sole, driving force behind these organizations.
Perhaps not, but it's absolutely clear they are the common funder. And, I bet they're the biggest fish in that scummy pond. It's also crystal clear that the less visibility Microsoft has as a funder, the less likely there will be questions of veracity regarding the "analysis" from these so called "think tanks". As Microsoft practices security through obscurity, so do these "stink tanks" claim unbiased authority by not announcing who paid for their "research". There's a reason why political Ads must have full disclosure as to who paid for what. That's because an uninformed public will make uninformed decisions, and often against their own interests. Paint it anyway you want, but I've got paint thinner.
= 9J =
You ARE entitled to your oppinion, however these 'Think Tanks' aren't having their motives questioned based solely on the source of their funding as much as the fact that they do not disclose their possible bias. Once that comes to light, whether or not their oppinions are driven by their funding, it is difficult to take any of their oppinions seriously.
'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'