Slashdot Mirror
UN Supports OSS/Free Software In Developing World
headisdead writes "This BBC report has details of the IOSN's (International Open Source Network) role in yesterday's Software Freedom Day. As the article rightly points out, the economic potential of these new markets for large tech corporations like MS makes this a real battle in the making. Question is, can Free Software really stem the tide when other sustainal development projects are struggling so much?"
This all comes down to money.
How can you compete against free, when the customers have little or no money.
A school in an underdeveloped country buys 100 old PCs.
Would you use 100 licenced copies of XP, or just download a linux iso for free?
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
What role does the UN play in deciding what type of software gets used / bought in the World? Is the UN a sort of marketing organisation? Does the UN make no distinction between promoting democracy and promoting capitalism?
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
I hope this will increase the use of free standards like Ogg Vorbis, XViD, PNG etc and it is only healthy to have many different operating systems.
Who is John Galt?
It certainly won't be easy for free software in these developing countries, especially considering how inexperienced with computers many of the users will be. Love it or hate it, any idiot can use Windows.
It's certainly an oppurtunity to introduce many new people to the Free Software philosophy. This can only be a good thing and give MS cause for concern. in these new markets.
Patriotism - the last resort of scoundrels.
Isn't empowering people one of the main ideas of free software? So giving people that until now had no means to use modern information systems the opportunity to finally participate is great and somehow at the heart of the free software movement.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is great that Linux (or rather GNU/Linux) is making inroads in corporate environments and has a lot of backing from big business like IBM, HP, etc., but I sometimes got the impression that the most important idea behind free software, giving the people means to make more of their lives, somehow slipped into the background recently.
So in this sense this is really going back to the roots of free software and that's a good thing.
I would say Bill Gates doesn't mind. In fact, he might even give away a special edition of Window just so he "indoctrinate" the youth and thus lead that generation to the life of Microsoft. Think about it. Once your a Windows user, most people stay that way. But if you started off using Mac, then that will be your religious..err..I mean..user friendly path in life.
Life is not for the lazy.
The primary advantage of F/OSS compared with proprietary software is that it can be acquired without cost. That's a big advantage. Once acquired, though, very real costs are incurred in installing, training, and maintaining. Sys admins do not work for free, regardless of the development model used by their OS.
Microsoft could, presumably, reduce the cost advantage of F/OSS by cutting the price of Windows. While the loss of potential revenue would be large in countries as populous as India or China, it would be much easier to absorb in small countries like Bhutan, Lesotho, or Gambia.
The consequence is that MS is in a position to make Windows cheaper to acquire, and, potentially, to reduce the cost of support it provides directly. F/OSS, on the other hand, cannot reduce the acquisition cost of its products and has no real control over the cost of support.
Many Western eyes typically fail to see the differences throughout the underdeveloped world. Some nations have a burgeoning IT sector and a veneer of prosperity riding atop massive poverty. Opprtunities for indivudal economic success are present in some countries, while in others opportunity is stifled by ideology or religion, corruption, and incompetence.
Many nations cannot (or do not care enough to) provide their populations with safe drinking water, minimal health care, and sufficient caloric intake. Rather than conjuring visions of besting Microsoft in these markets, the F/OSS community would be of better service if it conjured ways to use its products to enable these nations to tackle those more pressing problems.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I think that the developing countries in this area have a real advantage: Since the dependency of IT in the public sector is far behind the industrial countries, they have not been locked in! They have the full freedom to choose without having to consider huge migration costs.
Microsoft is aware of this, I guess that's why they have made light versions available in some asian countries and are planning to sell this product in more countries. Also, they will probably benefit from the lockin due to software piracy.
Even if pirate copies are available, or Microsoft offers software for free, there are numerous examples of developing countries taking a step in direction of OSS. They have seen the long term consequences of M$ lockin.
Question is, can Free Software really stem the tide when other sustainal development projects are struggling so much?"
Yes, it can. OSS development models can also solve problems where traditional development can't. Such as: localized software for non-latin languages.
Another great potential use of free software could happen in the field of maschine translation.
A friend's daughter (13 years old) was at our house this weekend, and wanted to "play on the computer", which is loaded with straight-up Debian.
She watched me click on the menus to pull up a couple of games, and then she was good to go. She played and had a good time all afternoon, exploring the selection of games (Frozen Bubbles and Defenguin were her favorites).
Her comment at the end of the day was "you sure have a cool computer to play on". I think inexperience actually -helps-, as there is nothing to unlearn. Clicking on icons is clicking on icons, I have watched a lot of people sit down on my Deb system and just start "doing stuff". I have noticed that the hard-core Windows users have the hardest time, but the casual users really have no problem.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Bill Gates has donated perhaps $1G but his organization's attempts to lock in countries is worth much more.. and possibly his donations support that. Developing countries have 2 needs - they need to satisfy potentially destructive political realities, and once they've gotten beyond that they need to best leverage their assets to develop their future. If a country is being given official aid, so long as there is a viable free alternative (or lower cost when tco calculated), commercial interests have no business selling to them. Even giving it away for free is bad if it is done by a known rapacious monopoly, and risky even if done by other companies with lock-in tactics, for what is then really going on is a bargaining away of that country's potential, either by hapless individuals or far more likely, someone who intends to make a profit. Of course if Gates wants to invest a cool billion in cash altruistically that is another story. Perhaps a story we'd like to hear.. how do organizations in fact organize that level of giving and make sure it goes to good use? How can we believe Gates is altruistic when his company is the corporate equivalent of a gang-backed serial killer?
My point about support costs, as I said, is that MS is in a postion to both lower the cost of acquiring its software and of lowering the cost of buying its support, if it chooses to do that. The free software community cannot do that, because its product is already free and it provides no direct support.
I am getting so tired of hearing this old canard.
I spend a lot of time supporting commercial software, and I support my own FOSS system, so I think I am in a position to argue this.
Commercial software support (even paid support) in general is no better than FOSS support. In fact, FOSS support is usually better. If you know how to ask, you can usually at least get a dialog with the actual developer of a FOSS product. If he says "fix it yourself", you can usually get someone with the capability to fix/enhance it at a fraction of the cost of a commercial support contract that doesn't provide anything beyond idiot help desk stuff. With a commercial product, you usually get the outsourced idiot help line, or even with a company that keeps that in house, you get third-line lackeys who can't/won't give you the straight story or real support. And customization? No comparison, with commercial software, this is a pipe dream, with FOSS, it is a concrete possibility.
My experience with developing countries is that there are a lot of young, smart people who are eager to do the coding that needs to be done. These countries don't have the resources to put into the abstracted RIP-OFF that most commercial "support" actually is.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
If the U.S. economy depends on selling Windows to third-world nations, we have far worse problems than even the deepest, darkest pessimist could ever have imagined.
Who cares if UN support free software if this organization is mostly a toothless authority who can't really do much to punish nations violating human rights, with decision making being dominated by US government and multinational corporations, and with 5 countries always hogging the UN security council seats just because they are winners of WWII? If UN can't even do simple things such as stopping Rwanda massacre or making the councils more accountable to everyone in the world, support of OSS/Free Software by UN is meaningless in reality.