Slashdot Mirror
MIT Urges Brazilian Government to Use Linux
sebFlyte writes "MIT's Media Lab has written to the Brazillian government (who is looking into a method to get its citizens cheap, high quality PCs) and has urged them to use Linux. From the article: 'Free software is far better on the dimensions of cost, power and quality...if the source code is proprietary, it is hidden from the general population. This robs them of a tremendous source for learning.'"
if the source code is proprietary, it is hidden from the general population. This robs them of a tremendous source for learning
:)
Incredible: it's the best argument I've heard about it. I don't really like the usage of the words "rob" and how emphatical it sounds but it's right.
Anyway, I learnt on an Acorn RiscPC (closed source OS) which was really ergonomical and it was also good so I sugest he should revise his consideration : open source is good but ergonomy also is and I'm afraid that, because progresses still have to be made, they can't argue much on this point.
Anyway I think the World would be better if the Brazilians heard that argument and accepted the principle.
Hooray for the MIT !
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I know that Linux is used widely throughout the government in Brazil for their work, it seems only logical that they would load Linux on the machines they are distributing throughout their country for the poor.
I don't see why it's a big deal the MIT is contributing to the needs of Brazil. MIT is highly respected and not taken lightly. Good for them for helping out.
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
I found the article very encouraging. I think there's a danger of Linux appearing as something that's a cheap alternative used in the third world because they can't afford "first rate" proprietary software. This is patronizing both to Linux and to third world countries. It's great to see intelligent arguments to choose open source beyond simple cost being made by a government, as in If the source code is proprietary, it is hidden from the general population. This robs them of a tremendous source for learning.
free software is not the same as Open Source. Maybe it's something to do with their logo, "Where technology means business." Minor point, but still.
How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
Ok, Save the hassle, flamebait, troll what ever.. What will these poor people do with these computers? Why not fix the country, fix the government, fix the future of the people instead of giving them Computers. Hmm lets see, I'm sure linux will help them manage their NON EXISITING bank accounts. Or, I could be looking at this the wrong way, and if i am, fine, correct me.
Remember when MIT was all about mathematics, science and engineering rather than a international public policy think-tank?
Oh well, there's still Caltech and Harvey Mudd.
The article does not mention anywhere that ``MIT Urges Brazilian Government to Use Linux'',. MIT seems to suggest to use ``Free software''. I wish people would stop equating the two; there are many, many other free software or open source projects that are not linux, and I believe it's harmful to the overall open source community to continue to enforce the notion that Open Source == Linux (and linux only).
-- "Tradition is the illusion of permanence."
While that may be true for the vast majority of the population, it's an insult to the minority who will tinker with the code of the OSS they are exposed to, get a taste for it, and go on to develop a home-grown software industry as a result.
No kidding. That's always been the least compeeling linux argument for me (and I say this as a user) - it is NOT possible for even a college trained programmer to go in and start playing with even a small OSS project. I'd say less than 100 Brazillians would be benefited from the "openness" angle of linux. It pretty much comes down to cost and an abstract principle that has no impact for them.
While that may be true for the vast majority of the population, it's an insult to the minority who will tinker with the code of the OSS they are exposed to, get a taste for it, and go on to develop a home-grown software industry as a result.
How very true! Somewhere out there, in Brazil, or anywhere else, is a kid who wants to learn how an OS works, and wants to try his hand at making it better. Who the hell are Megacorps to deny that kid the right to do that, just because "the majority doesn't need to know".
By the way, Marcello Tossati, maintainer of the 2.4 kernel, is from Brazil. He works for the local Brazilian distro called Connectiva. How could any of this have been possible if the world only had a shoddy Microsoft playpen to play in, with the nicest toys only meant for the privileged few employed by Megacorp to write operating systems?
I'm a Brazilian and i always see many things that MIT is one step further than others institutions or governments, that's why i see MIT as a visionary college, from the current present to the near future ... once again, i have to say that i strongly agree with MIT vision and i think it is time to get rid of fear on using Linux, Open Source software, and thinking the user is so dummy to grasp any other OS than Windows ... lower costs will reach more people, which means more users and then more programmers ...
Could somebody please explain how this:
"MIT's Media Lab has written to the Brazillian
government (who is looking into a method to get
its citizens cheap, high quality PCs) and has
urged them to use Linux."
Was derived from this:
From the article: 'Free software is far better on
the dimensions of cost, power and quality...if
the source code is proprietary, it is hidden from
the general population. This robs them of a
tremendous source for learning.'"
They said free software, not GPL or GNU/Linux
You could run Hurd or BSD.
Why is it that everyone associates Free == Linux.
FTA
Some cabinet members think consumers should have a choice between buying a computer with open source software and paying slightly more for a machine with Microsoft software. They think this approach would make sense to reach consumers who are already familiar with Microsoft software. But free-software advocates within Lula's administration believe Microsoft should be excluded from the program.
I'm all for Linux (OSS), but a bit disturbed when when advocates of any technology try to advocate less choice. Why NOT give the people the option to have MS or OSS? Trying to force "free" or "open" software upon the people doesn't sound open or free to me!
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
The point no one's making: those 100 (probably more like several thousand - Brazil ain't dumb) people can directly help everyone else. Under closed software, the only real help comes from the vendor, who in this case has a terrible track record.
I hate to sound like RMS but you do realize that when most people say Linux they mean more than just the kernel?
All of the software is open. You can go look at the code for ls or the Gimp or whatever you want. Yes only a few hardcore geeks will care about the internals of kernel code but your missing the point.
With all of the software being open you can always look at what is going on. You can always change whatever you want. You can always verify that your code is free of spyware/trojans/whatever.
Having access to the code is not just one thing it's a lot of things and I don't think you really get it.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
No, its like saying that hiding Quantum Physics textbooks from the general public robs them of learning.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Saying that hiding the source for an Operating System from the general public robs them of learning is like saying keeping Quantum Physics textbooks away from six year olds robs them of learning.
Worst analogy ever, and inaccurate.
I am a successful software engineer. I started my interest in computers primarily on a system called CDC Plato, and later on the TRS-80, both which had the development environment available and integrated into the OS by default, not unlike most Linux installations. The convenience of being able to tinker with software in varying degrees of involvement without having to acquire extra, expensive tools and exponentially larger learning curves made all the difference.
I really feel sorry for kids today trying to learn programming. There are no IDEs conveniently available within Windows by default. At best, one can hope to master the user interface of a particular version of some proprietary software -- all of which is subject to instant obsoletion upon release of a subsequent version.
What idiot modded this up as "insightful"?
I would like to point out, that until you first sat down at a computer, you were a member of the general public. Dickhead.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
It's not only about people being able to learn how an OS works, or how to program, etc. It's also about information security. With an open source system, the government is able to know exactly what is happening, and where its information goes to. Letting your most critical information be managed by some proprietary system, where you cannot know for sure exactly what is happening behind the scenes, where your data is being sent to, is not intelligent. Not for the US, the home country for most of these proprietary systems makers, and definitely not for other countries, to which these enterprises have no reason to be loyal.
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
but maybe in the near future there will be a headline:
MIT Urges World Governments to Use Linux
But schools are locked into Microsoft. I would sooner kids used Linux and the like, would give them a better start in IT than using the monoculture.
They DO hide quantum physics texts from the public. They put them in mysterious repositories called libraries which most people are afraid to enter because they contain information and other stuff that makes their heads hurt.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Open source software such as Linux, particularly outside the US, is really coming into its own. I had a bit of an epiphany recently that I'd like to share with you. For the longest time we've been obsessing about Linux on the desktop, and watching things like Google Zeitgeist to try to figure out what our market share is and when it's going to finally take that sharp upturn that signals the beginning of the end of the Microsoft monopoly.
But what has happened in the meantime? As Linux users, we find ourselves missing things from the ball-and-chains world less and less. I, for one, haven't needed to use proprietary software for anything in a few years now. What does this mean? It means that the Linux and open source world is now completely self-sustaining. Whether or not we have numbers that compare to Apple's and Microsoft's, we still have numbers big enough that we're here to stay, and there will probably always be enough new, good software to keep us going now. That's a comforting thing to know. (But I still think it'll get bigger.)
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Support isn't superfluous, urging is.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Man, I knew this poor guy would get lambasted for suggesting that poor Brazilians probably weren't going to spend their time hacking an OS. Come on, you know he's right. Note that the Media Lab didn't say much about it actually being easy to use or allowing people to do certain things. They were more concerned with source access. That's an absurd priority, and it should be obvious. So let's drop the self-righteous indulgence of our own politics and admit the truth:
A) Nobody owes you the inner workings of anything. Does Boeing owe a schematic to everybody who wants one just because 1 out of 1 million of its users might have an interest in self learning about aerospace? Furthermore, would your primary concern when choosing an airplane be open schematics, or its performance as an airplane? Open source has its place, but let's not become simplistic zealots about it.
B) Having the source code is nice, but to weigh that as the primary reason for choosing an OS is pure idealogy. The only important thing is that Brazilians are maximally empowered by the computers, not that the OS chosen fits our political assumptions. Empowered in this case probably means at a user level, not a hacking level. If MacOS X can be shown to be easier to use for their target audience and needs than Linux, the extra money might be worth it. If Linux is the best for the users, then even better.
The guy's original analogy was flawed, yes, but there is enough truth to it that writing him off with smug platitudes about the Future of the Children is really ridiculous.
Listening to the Media Lab's opinion on an accessible OS for lay people is like asking NASA for advice on bicycles. How's that for a bad analogy?
-Jonathan
There is no need to order the sequence of social advances. Free software won't fix a lot of problems, but that's okay. We can all do multiple things simultaneously, and giving people the freedoms of free software is one social advance more people need.
Digital Citizen
This really should be rated flame bait. I will try and respond in a less flaming style.
How much added cost was the Windows programming environment? The GNU tool chain is free. You say you got a lot out of learning the Windows SDK. Did you learn anything about how to code an operating system or a browser or a compiler or a relational data base? By definition you can get source for all F/OSS projects and see how they work. Plus you can get the Linux/GNU SKD as well.
If you think that learning an SKD means that you don't have to learn anything else then you have set your sights very low. I would argue that you have been brainwashed into thinking like a serf. Microsoft has mentally boxed you in and you accept their walls as a fact of nature. For you own sake re-examine you position and realize that the programming world is bigger, freer and more fun the the Microsoft dominated veal pen that you currently inhabit.