Slashdot Mirror
John Barlow Pushes Open Source in Brazil
greysky writes "This story on Foxnews.com reports that as part of the larger World Social Forum, Barlow spoke on how open source software can help alleviate financial problems of developing countries: "Already, Brazil spends more in licensing fees on proprietary software than it spends on hunger"." NPR talks about how Brazil plans to switch 300,000 machines over.
I thought that in some developing countries that the financial burden of software licensing wasn't an issue at all...
Come and help me pay off my mortgage - small donations preferable! http://www.paymymortgage.com.au
"Already, Brazil spends more in licensing fees on proprietary software than it spends on hunger"."
A point most modern countries should take note of. When licensing fees make up such a large part of your operating budget, it seems foolish to simply accept it and continue with business and not look for other options.
I'd prefer my country spending a little bit less on licensing fees and a little more on it's people.
Of course, without the newest version of Office, I suppose they couldn't make neato graphs to justify the latest software licenses expenditures.
-Teiresias
Here's a hint; the first sign you are an idiot is when _you_ start to tell people what _they_ think, according to the little mental boxes _you_ have fitted them into, and that _you_ have defined characteristics for.
By the way, just how long is Barlow going to coast on co-writing some Grateful Dead lyrics forty years ago? Isn't there a statute of limitations or something?
"Already, Brazil spends more in licensing fees on proprietary software than it spends on hunger".
Can anyone provide the numbers to back this up? Also, I would like to see about what the ratio is between the two.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
All the social forum's 800 computers are running on open-source software, but the loosely organized event ran into an embarrassing glitch Saturday when two big screens betrayed the fact that the computer was running on Windows, with the operating system's toolbar visible at the bottom of the screens. Lessig noticed and the computer was quickly disconnected and replaced with a laptop running on open-source software.
If only all proprietary software "problems" could be solved just by disconnecting...
http://stoploudness.org/
There must be a reason why more and more government agencies are adopting Open Source solutions. And i don't think it's all due to promotions. If must be worth the trouble for any organisation for any company to change something that's worked before for something else.
Im interested in TOC, but it's hard to establish where the truth lies. I trust Microsofts comments about the cost of Windows vs Linux about as much as i trust the Open Source community.
I noticed that too and thought it was very funny. The network that is against freedom of thought talking about freedom of expression in software.
One of the biggest benefits to open source is that it gives them a choice to use against microsoft and others on licensing fees. At the end of the day companies making billions in profit do it at the end users expense. I agree that they have R&D budgets to improve business and in general software costs are dropping but you cant beat the ability to develop your own operating system specifically for the department that you want and the root use of that departments need. eg water comapny only monitoring water etc.. no over heads reduced security risks etc. Its much more difficult to do on a windows based operating system simply because the underlying operating system still has the same fundamental flaws as seen previously with the rpc etc etc worms/vulnerabilities.
So they're all commies who believe in bogeymen. Fox News for ya, I guess.
It usually isn't if you are at home, but businesses do have to pay for their licenses, or they may be charged with tax evasion, and that is a serious offence even here in Brazil.
That being said, I have some expericence in setting up networks for my former college (federal institution, here the best colleges are the public ones, usually) and they *really* don't give a flying shit about using warezed copies of Windows in their labs, and no one ever has complained/charged/arrested/whatever.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
You run a government agency in Brasil.
You use your budget to:
A. Pay a team of OSS programmers for IT support and in the meantime create jobs and promote domestic-grown-owned-designed and controlled IT resources.
B. Pay for comercial software licenses and thus cut jobs and have the Brasilian tax-payer money go to some trans-national company and meanwhile turn your back on domestic-grown-own-designed IT resources.
MS will shove enough free or discounted mackerel down your throat so you don't learn how to fish and remain somewhat hungry.
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
"The activists in Brazil are generally united in their oppositon to what many call unbridled capitalism and the policies of the Bush administration." - Something said so often that it's practically a mantra of WSF activists is that they oppose unbridled capitalism (or capitalism, period), and imperialism. It's funny how the US corporate media chokes on printing that word, even when describing what someone else says, and changes it something vague like "the policies of the Bush administration". They won't even print the word when they're reporting on what activists say, it's like the BBC using an actor for Gerry Adams voice. I mean, go to Google News and search for the word imperialism - the first hit is a paleo-conservative web site, the second hit is a communist web site, then a South Korean site talking about Japanese WWII imperialism, then Al-Jazeera. It is one of those words commissars, I mean, editors, excise, even when they're just reporting about what someone said. The thing that gets me is not only do the mainstream corporate media not use the word, they won't even report when others use the word. Fox takes it to the point of ridiculousness, but it's not much different with NBC and so forth (owned by GE, which makes billions as a military contractor by the way).
I do think he put it best when he said that the best social program is a booming economy.
The idea that the government can accomplish any good by spending money on a nebulous problem like "hunger" is foolish at best. Work on improving the economy and hunger will take care of itself. As for Brazil, they really, really need to work on establishing a viable middle class. The situation right now looks like a validation of marxist idiot-ology.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
All, more or less. Look at how all of those channels let the White House get away with things that had Clinton done it the Republicans would have howled about endlessly. All those channels follow White House talking points. The White House calls Iraqis fighting American troops "insurgents"? Then so do CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. All of those channels are owned by conservative corporate entities.
What makes Fox news so unique is the nakedness with which it uses its propaganda techniques. Those other channels use them too, but they are more subtle. With Fox it's as plain as can be.
and they *really* don't give a flying shit about using warezed copies of Windows in their labs, and no one ever has complained/charged/arrested/whatever.
It's exactly the same in Mexico. But frankly, with $100, $200 or even higher costs of licensing Windows PER COMPUTER, I can't blame them. Microsoft should stop this "Windows starter edition" bu115h!7 and give much lower license fees to developing countries. Like for example, $25 for Home, and $30 for pro. Per household in homes, per computer in enterprises.
Do you guys really think that people who are starving, without jobs, AND paying with their taxes the external country debts, STILL have the resources to give some Redmond millionaire a great part of their income, just not to get arrested for piracy?
This is the TRUE risk of a monopoly like Microsoft: It widens the breach between the rich and the poor.
How exactly does shipping money to Redmond, WA help Brazil's economy?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
The implication is that the media always uses the terms the president uses. Look at how "private accounts" became "personal accounts" and all the media changed in lockstep.
We have to come to terms with the fact that the media is not biased towards the left, or biased towards the right. It is biased towards power.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That is very well said, and it cuts to the truth. If liberals were in power, the media would appear more liberal. Now that conservatives are in power, the media appears more conservative. It's all about money to the media, and whatever it takes to curry favor with those in power so that they can get favorable deals and increase their bottom line.
That's why you cannot get the whole story out of the mainstream media. You see it more clearly in countries that are not used to the American level of freedom. Old-style Soviet reporting, for instance, which was overtly propagandistic. Or in Ukraine which, during the original presidential election period, saw the state-run TV stations all but ignore Yuschenko's candidacy. When we see that, we call it propaganda easily, for we can so easily see the ties between state and corporations.
Those same ties exist in America, but instead of being held in place militarily, it is done economically, and in much more subtle ways. Ask awkward questions of President Bush? You'll find yourself being cut out of the loop in the future. Report something negative about the White House? You find your advertisers under siege from protest groups, and the economic push to conform to the White House view. It's a constant push against dissent of any kind, and it has an effect.