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."
I hate Micro$oft as much as anyone, but does this really surprise anyone here?
Support: The Malaysia per capita GDP is around US $10k. (Source: CIA World Fact Book)
Conclusion: The wired article is full of shit.
Here's something I don't get: Why do fans of open source software need to sell people on open source software?
I'm a fan of tacos, but I don't have a shirt that says "They said bring a sandwich or better, so I brought a taco." I figure if you want to eat lunch, you'll weigh all the options out there. I also figure, if you don't want a taco already, you especially don't want to hear me tout the virtues of spicy hot julienne strips of steak or chicken and fresh picante sauce covered in cheddar cheese (man, I should have had breakfast).
It just seems to me that pimping a product without getting paid for it is a lot of work for no actualized returns returns. But then again, I feel the same way about "switching" from Windows to Linux. I don't see the danger in Longhorn or in DRM (since it's hardly requisite) and viruses have never hit me. What does Linux offer me that I've been missing? Nothing, so far as I've seen.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
I highly doubt the OSS community can handle itself on the major news outlets. Everytime RMS is on he is an utter discrace who proves he doesn't get it. Too many OSS people are elitest and don't have the same computing goals as the average user. I'm sure Microsoft would just love it if RMS or the average slashdotter got on TV to debate.
Then you go on to claim that I accuse these companies of being "evil". Which I didn't do.
What conclusion do you expect the reader to draw when you single out, out of all the corporate and foundational donors, the groups categorized by "big tobacco" and "Exxon and anti-global warming"? What conclusion do you expect the reader to draw when you single out Microsoft for donating some largely unknown amount of money to these organizations?
You hardly meet the criteria of full disclosure, yourself. Your sources are largely anecdotal (newspaper articles, for this purpose, are considered such), with very little financial documentation (which, as the 501c organizations these groups are, they are required to disclose). You fail to even mention the proportion of the organizations' incomes which are represented by donations from such companies/foundations. You also fail to expose a particular organization's track record in arguing for/against the subject. Quite often, authors of this sort agree on the principle but disagree on the implementation; open source strikes me as just such an occasion.
I argue that while no, you don't state "these companies are evil" in so many words, it's reasonable to infer, from what you select and what you omit in your article, your view of these companies as evil given popular public image of groups called "Big Tobacco" and "Anti-global warming". Such descriptions, by their very nature, carry with them an implicit moral evaluation (i.e., that they are bad) -- unless, of course, you were to specifically say that big tobacco and anti-global warming companies are not necessarily bad things.
Selecting a group for indictment by implication, and then saying "but I'm not saying they're bad", does not remove the moral evaluative content of your original message, just as placing your own, selective, "notice of disclosure" at the bottom doesn't lend your article the mantle of impartiality.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
I'm not suprised that they are funded by microsoft...
Not because they are anti open source, but because they probably bought microsoft products because they don't like open source. This, in turn, led to them getting discounts and other perks because they purchased lots of licenses from Microsoft.
Call it funding... but I call it bulk discount.
If you're anti open source, why wouldn't you seek funding in some sort from an alternative company if you agree to exclusively use their software? It's just good business sense.
Not to be a flame, but why don't you just try to listen to their arguments instead of saying "Look! They use microsoft products! They must be biased! Ha ha ha ha. Open Source wins again."