Slashdot Mirror
Continued Look at Global Open Source
sebFlyte writes "In the second part of its look at open source in governments around the world, ZDNet takes an interesting look at open source in the developing world. Pricing obviously is an important factor (if you look at GDP, MS prices in Vietnam are the equivalent, for local people, of charging just shy of $50,000 for a Windows XP license in the US), but other issues arise, such as Brazil's 'sense of community', a certain amount of security-related worries from the Chinese, and language issues in India. A good analysis of the advantages of open source generally, the huge benefits it can have in developing markets, and the fact that open source is on the up despite massive amounts of lobbying and pressure from some proprietary vendors."
Since many users in poorer countries don't have existing systems there is no "switch" from one system to another. The users can start out using open source without having the baggage of expectations of how things SHOULD work. They have to start out by learning how to use an OS. Why not the free one?
Corruption.
The decision makers too often aren't concerned about real financial benefits of others in long term (Linux isn't that usefull for populism)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Uptake of open source is likely to be much higher in the developing world. The crazy license fees when compared to GDP as stated in the summary is one reason but the lack of an 'existing standard' is another. It is difficult for software like OpenOffice to make headway in the developed world as MS office is fairly ubiquitous.
Microsoft believe that the developing world will have to pay the fees because they will have to maintain compatibility with those of us in the west. However, it is a subtle balance. If Microsoft price themselves out of the market and the developing world look into alternative, open source solutions the it is likely that the legitimacy of tools such as open office will increase in the west too. Globalization will require internationally compatible software, and when the choice is between a western world that prefers proprietry software and a developing world which cannot afford the same software then it is a case of Microsoft dropping its prices dramatically, or the western world adopting open solutions.
Interesting times...
Awesome news. I look forward to the increasing trade deficit resulating as a direct consequence of largely U.S.-based programmers giving away their efforts for free.
And whose fault is that? If you're in a market where people will do it for free, you've picked the wrong market. Demand and supply. The free market. The american way. The anti-OSS movement are preaching protectionism and trade barriers, everything the US of A supposedly don't stand for.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Corrupt capitalism is just as oppressive as corrupt socialism. To modify your "oh so poignant" point slightly:
Armchair capitalism is very nice until it is YOU who finds himself working 3 hours to earn enough to buy a loaf of bread.
It's not capitalism that makes the USA a good place to work. It's the fact that there are effective, independent courts that do a fairly good job of maintaining the rule of law. In more socialist countries where there is a similarly effective judiciary, you will find that the three hour lines you refer to don't exist. In fact, you'll find that society does a pretty decent job of allocating goods. Note, I'm talking about socialism here - not central planning. There is a BIG difference. Distinctions like that tend to be glossed over or completely lied about in the brainwashing that a some (a lot of?) American schoolchildren get.
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
What is the point of these ads? Do Americans actually see an ad for some weird drug for low cholesterol, and for some reason believe they are more qualified than their doctor to decide if they need it? Who would do this?
I can't even fathom this amount of commercialism in medicine - it is wrong on so many levels I cannot even begin to explain. "Ask your Doctor about <insert drug here>. I have a better idea - why dont I assume that my doctor, who has trained for nearly a decade (and more), and who would probably have multiple orders of magnitude more information on me on my condition, would know best, and let them tell me if I need you drug., instead of listening to drug company propeganda?