Slashdot Mirror
The Software Politics Of 2004's Presidential Race
mjamil writes "The NYT(free registration required) has an article talking about the polarized use of OSS in the building of campaign Web sites. Specifically, it states that the sites for John Kerry (Democratic candidate for President) and the Democratic National Committee are built using OSS, while the site for President Bush's re-election campaign uses IIS. Linus and ESR are quoted. It's an interesting look at how even presidential politics are no longer immune to the free software war (free as in beer)." (David Brunton, pictured in the article, wrote to say "Now I'm going to go call my mom... won't she be proud? For all those girl geeks and gay geeks out there, I'm already taken, but it is an awful nice picture, isn't it?")
I dont know, maybe i'm wrong? It just seems to me that most politicians wouldnt really *care* about what platforms their websites are hosted on..
In a campaign season of polarization, when Republicans and Democrats seem far apart on issues like Iraq, the economy and leadership style, it is perhaps not surprising that the parties find themselves on different sides in the politics of software as well.
The Web sites of Senator John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee run mainly on the technology of the computing counterculture: open-source software that is distributed free, and improved and debugged by far-flung networks of programmers.
In the other corner, the Web sites of President Bush and the Republican National Committee run on software supplied by the corporate embodiment of big business - Microsoft.
The two sides are defined largely by their approach to intellectual property. Fans of open-source computing regard its software as a model for the future of business, saying that its underlying principle of collaboration will eventually be used in pharmaceuticals, entertainment and other industries whose products are tightly protected by patents or copyrights.
Many of them propose rewriting intellectual property laws worldwide to limit their scope and duration. The open-source path, they insist, should accelerate the pace of innovation and promote long-term economic growth. Theirs is an argument of efficiency, but also of a reshuffling of corporate wealth.
Microsoft and other American companies, by contrast, have long argued that intellectual property is responsible for any edge the United States has in an increasingly competitive global economy. Craig Mundie, chief technical officer and a senior strategist at Microsoft, observed, "Whether copyrights, patents or trade secrets, it was this foundation in law that made it possible for companies to raise capital, take risks, focus on the long term and create sustainable business models."
The dispute can take on a political flavor at times. David Brunton, who is a founder of Plus Three, a technology and marketing consulting company that has done much of the work on the Democratic and Kerry Web sites, regards open-source software as a technological expression of his political beliefs. Mr. Brunton, 28, a Harvard graduate, describes himself as a "very left-leaning Democrat." He met his wife, Lina, through politics; she is a staff member at the Democratic National Committee.
His company's client list includes state Democratic parties in Ohio and Missouri, and union groups including the United Federation of Teachers and the parent A.F.L.-C.I.O. "The ethic of open source has pervaded progressive organizations," Mr. Brunton said.
The corporate proponents of strong intellectual property rights say, in essence, that what is good for Microsoft, Merck and Disney is good for America. But they argue as well that the laws that protect them also protect the ideas of upstart innovators. They have made their case forcefully in Washington and before international groups, notably the World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations specialized agency.
"This is a huge ideological debate and it goes way beyond software," said James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology, a nonprofit group affiliated with Ralph Nader that advocates less restrictive intellectual property rules.
But the politics surrounding open-source software do not always fit neatly into party categories. The people who work on software like the Linux operating system, the Apache Web server and others are an eclectic bunch of technologists. "You'll find gun nuts along with total lefties," Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, said in an e-mail message.
Still, those who find the cooperative, open-source ethos appealing tend most often to be libertarians, populists and progressives. Not surprisingly, open-source software was well represented in Howard Dean's Democratic presidential primary campaign, which so effectively used the Internet and Web logs in grass-roots organizing.
Those open-source advocates will presumably find Senator Kerry more appeal
1. "Free as in beer" - The same as if you were given a beer to drink and you didnt pay for it.
:)
2. "Free as in speech" - This is when you pay for the beer, but its priceless to hear you talk when drunk
Free as in beer.
HTH
The Libertarian presidential candidate's websites are running FreeBSD and Windows 2003. Interesting. :>
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
Free as in beer = Free stuff! Take it! Use it! Don't PAY for it.
Free as in speech = Freedom. You have the right to do this.
Its in the slashdot FAQ, but basically there are 2 types of "free" in the english language - free as in beer and freedom - the debate is always on as to the meaning of "free" software:
Free as in beer - costs no money
Freedom - no (or not many) restrictions on it. I.e. opensource software may be thought of as "free" because you are (usually) entitled to modify and redistribute the software to suit your purposes, so long as you follow some basic rules.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I guess it's good time to keep our eyes on what Microsoft gives to political parties.
this has to be the single most unimportant issue in world politics today. I really struggle to believe that anyone would read anything into, or make any kind of an issue over what webserver hosts a politician's website.
What's the reasoning here? "Kerry's webserver runs teh linux, so if he wins he will destroy MS and the world will be happy and live as one with no more wars or fighting."
Get a beer first, only THEN will you understand :)
"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that ones work is terribly important." -BRussell
Try http://georgewbush.org/ instead.
But not all girl geeks are straight, dammit!
You will die if you register? They pay to hosting, the guy /gal wrote the article, admins running that mega site, staff...
So, if you register, they will mail "make your xxx 5 inch bigger"? NY Times? What happens if they show you a damn gif file to cover costs, you will die?
Karma whoring at its best...
Bush believes in supporting hard working American workers. Even if he has topay for it, he knows that it's worth it to put food on the plates of his citizens and subjects. He probably also eats American grown food, flies in an American buiolt plane and drives an American car Kerry on the other hand uses foreign imported free software. He thinks that cost is the only area that matters. He probably drives an imported car and flies using foreign airlines such as Quantas and Aeroflot.
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but this one is too good. My bet is that you are typing this on a computer that has large chunks of the hardware manufactured in Taiwan and assembled in mainland China(China actually doesn't do much high tech manufacturing...yet). Probably on Microsoft software, Microsoft has had large development centers in India(thus foriegn) for a while.
And while linux may have originated in Finland, a very large chunk of the code was written in the US.
So I find it hard to believe that Kerry's platform is any less American than yours...
That would be more revealing than what their websites run on. To the best of my recollection, Kerry didn't answer the question "Mac or PC?" at a debate among the democratic contenders (Al Sharpton was the only Mac user). I also recall reading that Bush used a Mac, and that he used to be an enthusiastic emailer until he was informed that records would be kept of all his email. I may be wrong about all this. Maybe someone could provide better info.
In 2000, I remember noticing that GWB's site used Apache and Gore's used IIS.
I have to wonder if Timothy would have posted this story had it been the other way round? Same as the Greenpeace story earlier. Ooo, political organizations that Timothy personally likes use technology too!
This is not news, Timothy.
The word "free" can mean more than one thing in the english language. In order to explain the meaning of the word "free" you can append a short explanaition, such as "as in beer" or "as in speech".
Free (as in beer) means that the product/service in question can be obtained/used without you having to pay money for it. This is perhaps the most common use of the word in the daily language.
Free (as in speech) is a phrase only valid when discussing information. Free (as in speech) means that the information in question doesn't have a copyright restriction appended it (or similar).
On slashdot, the most common subject of discussion is software. Just like a song, a software program can be free-as-in-beer, free-as-in-speech or both. The idea of OSS is that software should be free (as in speech), so that you are legally allowed to modify, complement, extend, etc. it.
Just because a piece of software is free (as in speech) does not mean that it has no restrictions in how it can be handled. Examples of restrictions are:
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Call me crazy, but I think really this has as much or more to do with their web designers and/or sysadmins as it does with their political stance. I mean, I guess their webservers do somewhat match their political standing, but I doubt it was really a concious decision. Bush could have just as easily hired some Unix heavy group who would probably run Apache or John Kerry could have just as easily hired some sort of ASP.net dream team for his site. If I recall correctly in 2000 Gore DID run IIS and Bush DID run Apache.
I would bet that if you were to look at political websites beyond those of the Democratic and Republican candidates the division would be far less clear (although I would bet you would still see some of the same division).
Guy has a good point.. how can one RTFA when /. keeps posting links that require registration? not everone wants to cop spam for a stupid NYT article.. should be compulsory to have a google news link in there or something.
As one who rather likes open source, but whose job can potentially be offshored, I am having trouble making up my mind about this offshore outsourcing thing. I know there are other differences and complexities. The "free software" advocates want code to be free-as-in-speech, but the momentum is really behind the free-as-in-beer motive. Also, there are some who argue that offshore outsourcing will be detrimental to the US economy as a whole, but those who argue otherwise -- and back their arguments with data -- seem to have the better argument. So the above paragraphs distill the state of my reasoning at the moment. I have trouble seeing how I can favor one and oppose the other.
Please, argue with me.
(Pardon this repost ... didn't get any response last time).
The incumbent Liberal party (which is actually very conservative) uses IIS. The opposition Labor party (which is slightly less conservative) uses Apache.
The Greens (progressive) use Apache on Linux for all their websites (including the one I built) and have a pro-F/OSS policy in general.
Yes, this is shameless self-promotion.
I sure as heck ain't changing my vote because of this issue. Anyone who is voting for any person because of only one reason is not thinking about the whole picture. So what? Bush probably is hosting their site and their host uses Windows and IIS. Bush uses Movable Type on his Blog too. Does that mean he's a worse candidate then Kerry is JUST because he paid for his software? Again, this is just probably how it worked out and neither candidate probably has a clue WHAT software their web site runs on.
Gorkman
I find it more likely that the Kerry organisation chose OSS simply to lower their running costs. The Bush camp has more cash to burn ($200m) and so can afford to go for a more user friendly OS(I'm not trolling,Windows IS more user friendly). I wouldn't have put it past MS to have 'donated' serveral hundred licences and server software to the current administartion.
.NET will probobly crumble at the first YRO slashdot headline.
Though the situation in the Bush camp does seem to compliment their politics, I doubt Kerry and his followers give a danm about the OSS/CLSS debate. They just went with the cheapest option.
Of course they will benefit from ability to handle higher email loads and site requests. If the bush site is an aspx, then
May the Maths Be with you!
"You'll find gun nuts along with total lefties," Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, said in an e-mail message.
;-)
Any prizes for guessing who he was referring to?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
So, after all these years....when I finally found a girl on /. she's not straight. Damn!
Deap breath....k, just keep searching...
Indeed most beer is neither free as in beer nor free as in speech. However you more often find beer which is free as in beer than beer which is free as in speech.
...
Now if you drink lots of free beer it may help you doing free speech, although then there's a danger that your speech is actually sense-free
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
It's redundant because the 0th comment (the f-ing article) covered it.
From the NYT link:
Told that the Democratic National Committee Web site runs on open-source software, Tony Welch, the national committee's press secretary, replied, "Oh, thanks for telling me." Later, after checking with his technical staff, Mr. Welch called back to say that open-source software was "the right technology at the right price."
Besides, if you can't figure out how to register with the NYT w/o giving up any real info, you've got bigger problems.
I think I need a new sig here.
with a gap in financial support in the tens of millions of dollars, the kerry campaign has had to save every penny it could, and free software and low-cost LAMP hosting is certainly one way to do that.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
The principal consideration, Mr. Ellis said, was computer security and protecting the privacy of personal data on the Web site. The programming tools, procedures and the larger pool of workers skilled in using Microsoft software, he said, prompted the Republicans to opt for Microsoft's Web server, called Internet Information Services, running on the Windows 2000 operating system.
This guy obviously has his head so far up Microsoft's ass that hey's bought everything they've said about secure computing. Let's see, there's currently a worm that's infected thousands of IIS servers across the internet (who knows, it could have even infected the GOP's), and it's spreading via Javascript to millions of IE users, for which Microsoft has issued no patch, and yet this is somehow the most secure solution? The mind boggles. Even joe sixpack by now knows that MS is not secure after his Windows box sends him popups when there is no browser loaded and he has to reformat it and start over every three months after being infected with the worm du jour.
I personally find it interesting that the vast majority of the people I talk to consider this to be a "normal" computing experience. When my landlord told me the other day that they'd been infected by Bugbear and had spent a difficult few days trying to clean it off, I said "Well, that's one of the reasons I switched to Mac... No worms or viruses (yet)." He said "Oh, really? You don't have to run Norton's?"
I find it amazing that the majority of computer users out there think that spending $30 a year on subscriptions to AV software and firewalls is a normal expense that you just have to pay for, like the electric utility or water bill, if you want to use a computer. They have no clue that this software is only necessary to make up for a lack of security in the OS to begin with.
The only analogy I would compare it with is if Ford, rather than recalling all of the Explorers that rolled over, simply said, well, you'll have to buy a subscription to our special "tire tread enhancer service", and bring in your car every week to have the treads updated to the latest and greatest treads that won't separate. That way you won't roll over in a crash and explode in a ball of fire. Can you imagine the outcry if that happened? Why isn't MS held to the same standards?
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Amen.
Every ./ user should be using bugmenot by now. And every person who whines about subscription required should be using and promoting bugmenot! I don't think there's anything wrong with the NYTimes asking for registration. I think it's wrong that you slackers are complaining about it, rather than showing them the futility of trying to gather information this way.
It's similar to people who protests against copyright laws, but aren't actively distributing copyrighted material. The only way to beat the system is to BREAK it. If you aren't being civily disobediant, you are supporting the law.
Finally, as regards the article itself:
So the real point here is that support of open source has nothing to do with political ideology?
So, the article says CLEARLY that open source is not a stricly republican or democrat favorite.
And of course Libertarians are further right on the political line graph than republicans, and they are big supporters of OSS. So OSS views actually have NOTHING to do with your political party?
This story is pure and simple propoganda. The headline and opening paragraphs make it seem like republicans are against open source. It would be like saying Democrats are against gay marriage just because John Kerry is The reality is that politics, like OSS decisions are all about choice. In this case, one person chose their platform of choice. For example, This Repbulican introduced legislation in Texas which seeks to ensure that free/open-source software is given a level playing field when competing with proprietary products in state agencies There was a /. article about it a year ago, but damned if I can find it now.
That doesn't mean all republicans are pro OSS either. It just means that
OSS is prefered by everyone who gets to know it
the NYTimes is pro-Kerry
if you must read the Times, read the whole article.
Sometimes (pun intended) the reporting is good, but the headlines are rarely written by the reporters who know the story. Editors write headlines, and they write the headline that will get the most people to buy the paper. They slant them as per their personal choice and perception as to wh
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Or you could get the BugMeNot extention for Mozilla Firefox:
Roadfield extention page which includes the BugMeNot extention.
I think the article makes a large omission when it doesn't point out that the Internet was a government funded project that grew up with the proto-free software movement. DARPA first approached ATT, then the owner of all phone lines in the country (when modems came along you weren't allowed to plug them directly into a phone line), about building a network based on open protocols and ATT turned them down because they wouldn't be able to control it. Remember AOL before they built in access to the Web? That probably is what the Internet would have looked like had ATT had control over whatever the Internet might have been in that alternate universe. Hell, even in the late 80's the head of ATT said there was no need for NSFnet because they could provide ISDN to the desktop.
It was a specific type of policy oriented towards open-ness that led to the Internet being the way it is. The software that underlies the Internet is free software, it has been and still is the dominant form of software in the infrastructure which makes up the Internet. Open source is not "counter culture" on the Internet as the article portrays. The only reason MS has any role on the Internet is they have leveraged their desktop monopoly.
I wish reporters understood these things.
I disagree. I'm not in the computer industry.
I'm a long time linux user at home, however I use NT at work.
My friends and family use windows 2000 and XP. I can't figure it out. I spend a lot of my time asking them how to do the simplest of tasks, different applications have different default save locations. I don't know where the configuration files are.
I like knowing that when I use an application it will save in ~
The user specific configuration is in ~/.application.
When I reinstall windows I am sure to forget some details like IE bookmarks, or other preferences buried around the computer in random locations.
I know linux isn't the simplest easiest most straightforward OS. But once you learn it, it is really easy to use. Windows IMO works okay if you click around and hunt, but it has so many odd details to remember that it is a frustrating user experience if you haven't done something recently.
The odd details in linuxland tend to be command line switches, which are typically documented in the man page. Where in the windows help system is the location of my IE, netscape or opera bookmarks documented?
...but I like how the first line in the post's text with the headline including "software" and "politics" contains "registration required" simply to view the article.
*giggle*
As someone who has a NYT registration, I have to say that I've never recieved [noticed?] a single bit of spam coming as a result of said registration.
Who doesn't like free music?
Yeah maybe one uses Linux and the other is MS, but both of their developers can't code worth beans
John Kerry W3C
George Bush W3C
and the parent:
The grandparent was referring to George H.W. Bush, who was, in fact, a war hero, having been shot down as a dive bomber pilot during the battle of Midway. George W. Bush, on the other hand, was a pilot of obsolete Air National Guard jet fighters during the last years of the Viet Nam conflict who occasionally appeared for drill.
Many of us who were on active duty at the time considered that to be the "moral equivalent" of draft-dodging.
utter rubbish
A liberterian? Voting for bush? NEVER.
Bush has grown the size of the govt more then any other president in recent history.
He runs up record debt.
He invades sovereign countries which are of no threat to the US.
He is the champion of the patriot act.
He wants to amend the constitution to prevent gays from marrying.
He fights states that want to legalize medicinal marijuana.
He fights states that pass right to die statutes.
Like most people who call them sleves liberterians you are simply a republican you is ashamed to say so. Please don't besmirch the liberterian party by calling yourself one while voting for the least liberterian candidate.
evil is as evil does
This article has been prepared for tomorrow edition of an Italian leftist newspaper, L'Unità.
Maybe there's a little bit of populism about that too (actually, there is a lot: L'Unità has always expressed its bad feelings with the Bush family and decisions), but it's interesting seeing that:
a) Someone there often reads Slashdot (this isn't the first article appearing the same day in both places)
b) Although they can't spell "Mozilla" in the right way, they give a try to explain what are the advantages of Free Software over proprietary one (doing a little bit of confusion with OpenSource, but unfortunately we're used to that here in Italy)
Well, some conscience is far better than none.
If you're an italian speaker, here's the link.
42.
I am on the web team for the Green Party candidate, David Cobb. Every member of the team is an open-source purist, and approached the project prepared to win over the others, though that turned out to be unecessary. We are currently using PostNuke on Debian, but this has proved too clunky for heavy usage by people with a wide variety of skill levels. We are currently developing a new site, which will be Plone (Zope) running on BSD.
David himself is not much of a technophile, but has the sense to use a PowerBook on the road.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
It should be noted that whitehouse.gov, the official site for President Bush, is apache running on linux. So in the end this is all just political propaganda, interesting but still just propaganda. Peace, Rovaedne
...The bit with the list of problems with the Muslim world and saying each one is not the fault of Israel is a standard misdirection tactic. His entire rant has the form of reasoned opinion, but when examined it is full of lies, exaggerations, repetitions of propaganda, and racism. I am so tired of this BS that it's all Israel's fault that the Middle East is so fucked up. As the writer of the article astutely points out, there are MANY reasons why the Middle East has gone awry, not the least is the 11th-century attitudes and behaviors toward women. If there is anything "racist" or repetitious of "propaganda", it is coming from the side that would rather have the Western world sympathize with terrorists who would rather keep us women in the beekeepers' suits than get with the fucking 21st century for a change. I will give said two "Anonymous Clowns" this much--Israel isn't perfect, it as a nation HAS indeed unjustly punished its share of innocent bystanders in the Palestinian community. We as a world community can't keep enabling this behavior but neither should we allow equally innocent Israelis to continue to lose their lives. OK, maybe Israel's creation never should have come into being. It was a stupid-ass idea for the Brits and Americans to have the brilliant idea to stick an egalitarian people in the middle of a culture that insists on the subjugation of women. Of course, they're going to hate that kind of intrusion! But what the hell do we do with a nation full of two million people who won't budge? Nuke them? That would make us murderers and genocidal maniacs, and it would make any other nation also guilty of likewise. So then what would your alternative be? That Yasser Arafat et al had their way and were able to "push the Jews into the sea" so a democratic Israeli state ceased to exist? Fine--if I had Bill Gates's money, I'd gladly give the Israelis Montana and say take it, Robert Redford never did anything good with it; but then the only shred of forwardthinkingness gets engulfed in a sea of a return to oppression and religious fanaticism. Fanatics will get their way and terrorism will prove to have worked. I do not defend a lot of what Ariel Sharon and his hawkish government get away with, but neither do I want to kiss the ass of Arafat in the name of so-called "liberalism" and "anti-racism"--I thought we liberals were about anti-_violence_. People who defend the oppression of women--and the perpetuation of it--make me sick; and IMO they _should_ be squashed like the insects they are.