Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Attacks Gates, Microsoft, & Charity Foundation
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, has an article in the BBC in which he maintains that Gates' departure from Microsoft doesn't mean the end of proprietary software and that the free software community needs to stand strong to undo the damages Bill Gates, Microsoft, and other proprietary software vendors (explicitly naming Apple & Adobe amongst them) have done. And he slips in a claim that the Bill and Melinda Gates charity foundation doesn't really help the poor; it just pretends to while actually subjecting them to greater harm."
I'm one of the biggest GPL zealots around here, and RMS is high on my list of respected people, but come on. There are whole medical labs dedicated to fighting TB and AIDS in southern Africa that wouldn't exist without the Bill&Melinda foundation. How is that hurting anything?
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
My mind is screwed. It immediatly thought of RMS wielding a big a big katana running like a madman towards Gates and a legion of MS employees.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Is Stallman so desperate to make Mr. Gates out to be the bad guy that heâ(TM)d sink this low?
I don't see any "low sinking" about it. First of all, the money Gates is so charitably donating, is money he acquired from an illegal monopoly, so it is reasonable to follow where it is going.
Second, there is a good argument to be made that foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are harmful and are mainly entertainment vehicles and tax shelters for the rich.
Third, why shouldn't Stallman comment on this stuff? He started the Free Software Foundation out of social consciousness and civic concern; of course, he would comment on other social issues and may well take action, even if they have nothing to do with software.
And why should Stallman be "desparate"? Free software is doing better than ever before, while Microsoft just keeps failing in everything they do.
The rest of the NeoSmart files contains more bullshit. For example:
Stallman somehow neglects to mention that â" regardless of whether morally acceptable or not â" Microsoft had the legal right to demand payment in exchange for their software.
There is no "neglect" about it. It is not at all clear that Gates had that legal right at the time; in a sense, Gates helped establish that right, to the deteriment of us all, according to Stallman's reading.
I don't agree with what Stallman says, but he is at least consistent and logical. NeoSmart is a bunch of bullshit and FUD.
Is Microsoft getting so desperate that they have to step up their bullshit and FUD machine another notch? I guess it's a good sign.
fucking commie bastard
capitalism forever!
Yeah!! Because lowering barriers-to-entry into the market and encouraging businesses to be competitive are so communistic.
Oh wait...
http://outcampaign.org/
Wow, he really comes across bitter. One may dislike Bill and MS, but the foundation Bill started has really done some great things. At least he is doing something with his money AND has made other extremely rich people start to do similar charity activities.
I think while MS has done some awful things, the industry has still moved forward as a whole. Bill saw a business model and moved to make it successful. Stallman's idea has caught on too, just not as well YET as the Microsoft one.
Instead of focusing on criticizing Microsoft how about focus on making open source software that is not "as good" but rather "MUCH BETTER" than closed sourced equivalents? How about make OpenOffice or Koffice not "good enough for most users" to be so awesome that it surpasses MS Office? That's why Firefox caught on, it was significantly better than IE 6 in terms of functionality and SECURITY that it was able to become a contender.
Say what?
I can turn my PC on and off at will, add and remove files, wipe Windows off the hard drive completely and install Linux if I choose... hell I can even toss the whole thing in the dumpster and buy a Mac if I really want to.
How am I not in control?
To suggest that "Microsoft is failing at everything they do" is just ridiculous. Microsoft is concerned about the generation of DOLLARS. Their rules are about making MONEY. In that sense, they are spectacularly successful at what they do, whether you or I agree with their motivation, ethics or whatever.
Its like trying to say that China sucks because they are not a Democracy. Sure, they may suck indeed to you and me, but to China, they are doing just fine.
Stallman is a horrible spokesperson, in the sense that he allows himself through his own words to be defined as a kook, allowing his goals to be written of as the rantings of a madman.
would atleast dictate that he refers to Bill Gates as Mr Gates rather than "Gates", I find it offensive and I'm not the one even being attacked.
I once read something along the lines that presentation is90% of the arugument or something along those lines.
As someone who doesn't really follow the free software movement, I think he should have focused on promoting the advantages of open-source, rather than bashing those that are free to license their software whichever way they choose.
Gates didn't invent proprietary software, and thousands of other companies do the same thing. It's wrong, no matter who does it.
Utter nonsense - and it reflects badly on the FSF. How exactly are you going to persuade these companies to become more open-source friendly, if all you do is bash them?
That's your opinion and I don't agree with it.
No, it doesn't. As a matter of fact, if all of my computers were to vanish right now, my life wouldn't change that much. It might even be better. You want to talk about power over people? Have a look at the banking industry.
The system will change. That's just the nature of things. Whether or not it needs to be changed is irrelevant.
I disagree with most of what this guy has to say. If anyone creates a piece of software or anything else, it's their right to do as they please with their creation.
Here's an incredibly intelligent person who has the emotional development of a 15 year old.
Ugh I know this is flame bait but I have to say it as it's on topic.
I still don't see the harm that Gates brought to the computing industry with Microsoft. They brought a unification to the desktop and IT that simply didn't exist before, and pushed for standards that made it easier.
And even now there are still problems with all of this. Look at the browser market. Even if IE were not involved, you still have the problem that Firefox, Opera, and Safari render pages differently. Their performance is also very different. So say, a website that you write for one may be great on performance but when launched in another browser be completely and utterly poor.
Even setting "standards" for rendering don't resolve that, as exactly "how" those standards are implemented are left up to the developers. Then you still have the issue that Safari is the most common browser used on Macs, and that's certainly going to heat up as Safari 4 makes its rounds.
Either way, Microsoft tried to reduce this as much as possible. And they succeeded. Despite the fact that millions of people don't know how to use the computers they use every day, they still use them and have access to them. You can still get an education with them.
There are points where IT nerds don't want to learn anything new anymore--it's just at a much higher point than the average person, but still exists...
When I first read rms' potification, it made a certain sort of sense. If you've ever been threatened by the BSA, as I have - twice - you begin to recognise that many software vendors use EULAs to give themselves ridiculously expansive rights, far beyond the government's constitutional limits (at least in the USA). Enter my house to audit my computers? In your dreams.
After a great deal of thought, however, I realize that his view on free software and society actually do make a lot of sense. Free-as-in-liberty software is worth supporting IMHO. So this former Microsoft enthusiast does. Still use a Microsoft mouse, though - they make great hardware. :-)
I have no opinion on the Gates' foundation - I favour charity, obviously, but I'm not up to speed on the details of their goals & policies.
--
Written on the best-selling N800 GNU and Linux tablet.
The only reason he wants healthy people in Africa is so that he can make money locking them into paying for Windows.
Invest a few million to ensure the good health of the population, reap a few billion in licensing fees. It's no more difficult than that.
If that's his plan then someone should tell him that it's very, very flawed.
Regardless of how much money is thrown into the dark continent, it will be two or three generations at least before it's up to the standards of a first world economy. And by then Billy-Boy will be dead and as such likely unable to reap the untold billions in licensing fees that you assume he's after.
Unless of course you think Gates is an immortal demon intent on stealing all men's souls, which frankly is a belief that wouldn't surprise me on slashdot.
Free software is ironically both communist-ic (yay collective good) and free-market-istic (the price of the software is the marginal cost of production of one copy, or, um, zero!) It's rather fun. Not too many markets work out that way.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and the rest, offer you software that gives them power over you. A change in executives or companies is not important. What we need to change is this system. That's what the free software movement is all about. "Free" refers to freedom: we write and publish software that users are free to share and modify.
In other words, "Do as I tell you, or you are a dumb slave"
Don't get me wrong, I love free software, but more than that I enjoy software that just works. If its free, I'll use that first, but Stallman has always seemed to say that, "Freedom is what I say freedom is, and if you don't do what I tell you to do, then you are not free" Give me a break.....
Monstar L
From the article: "To pay so much attention to Bill Gates' retirement is missing the point. What really matters is not Gates, nor Microsoft, but the unethical system of restrictions that Microsoft, like many other software companies, imposes on its customers."
The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is one of the largest charitable organizations in the world, and manages those assets earmarked for charitable contribution by Gates as well as Warren Buffett.
The foundation currently donates hundreds of millions of dollars per year across a portfolio of (I think) worthy causes -- HIV research, education, feeding the poor.
For RMS to insinuate that these contributions are "merely pretending to help" and that they "do more harm" than good is ridiculous.
What then, should the foundation do? Should the foundation -- and by extension, all of us -- simply stop making donations to disease research, the building of libraries, feeding the poor, and improving universities? Does RMS believe that there will be some sort of grassroots "open source" movement to research vaccines and build libraries? Of course that won't happen, and if this is what he believes, then he's flipped his lid. The world doesn't work this way, and the B&M Gates foundation looks like it's doing its best in an imperfect world.
There's also this story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
Its one thing to be passionate about free software, but you can go too far. In the real world, If he held any position of importance at all, Stallman would have to resign his position after a comment like that. Stallman obviously thinks software is more important than people. He is dead wrong. Something wholly good is coming out of the software that he is criticises. Is free software going to feed people and cure disease?
Stallman would also be wrong if he thought that all the money that the Gates foundation plays with is sourced from Microsoft. Warren Buffett has given most of his fortune to the foundation also. To even imply that such philanthropy is harming the thirld world is nothing less than criminal.
RMS pointed out that the bulk of the Gates Foundation's money is parked in investments (so the philanthropy can live off the interest). This is a true statement. However, it's a bit silly to imply that a philanthropy is disingenuous for not spending its entire balance sheet in a single year... because if philanthropies did that, they mostly wouldn't be around longer than a year. Pretty much EVERY philanthropy keeps most of its money in investments, and does it philanthropic work with the annual proceeds.
Stallman's second criticism is that some of the particular investments the Foundation keeps its money in are not socially-conscious companies. I don't know the details of the Gates Foundation's portfolio, but that's a fair criticism of a philanthropy in general. If you donate money to a gun control policy foundation, you expect that they won't invest it in gun manufacturers, etc. A foundation that works with disease and living conditions in third-world countries probably shouldn't invest in companies with poor track records of worker and environmental exploitation in third-world countries. Indeed, applying pressure through the use of its investment decisions might be the most effective power that a foundation of that size could wield.
In sum, the quote was probably a bit less than fair in that it has nothing to do with software, and was thrown in just to be spiteful. Still, the quote was just ONE SENTENCE... buried in an article that dealt exclusively with software otherwise.
I ask this out of genuine curiosity and ignorance.
As I recall, Gates's main argument is that programmers must make money for their work, as there is no incentive for them to produce software otherwise.
Apart from a few benevolent souls who produce software in their spare time, how exactly is completely free software a sustainable model? Or is the argument that you make your software open source but not free? Does this mean someone else can copy your hard work and produce a customized version?
I still haven't really grasped what incentive a business would have of producing software without protecting their work. Or is Stallman advocating a Red-Hat/Suse sort of thing, where you produce software and charge for consultancy? Meaning the more obscure your software is, the better?
How can you produce desktop software using such a model?
"feeding the poor" sounds really warm and fuzzy, but without a reversal in global population growth what are you "really" achieving? How about spending some of that money on weekly radio and TV spots that counteract the religious propaganda that we see and hear every day. I've love to see that, a syndicated radio network that examines sermons from famous religious leaders and exposes the fear and hate mongers that they really are. Now THAT would be charitable.
MOD PARENT UP!
Quote: "Microsoft software has a much higher TCO than best-of-breed free software."
The cost of owning a Microsoft product is very high, in my experience, because of the extreme sloppiness that Microsoft allows. Microsoft makes more money when users pay to buy new versions because they have discovered problems with the original versions.
It's amazing how many people are pretending to be charitable. It's amazing how well that works with the public. Basically, someone who made billions of dollars with tricky, sneaky, unethical business methods can gain a positive image by spending a little of that money on public relations.
Re-worded quote: "Microsoft drains money from the economy of every country in the world. Free software allows that money to be put to better use."
"Free software existed fine without RMS."
No, it didn't.
Yes, a software package that was already written and finished and made public would of course continue to exist. But there were literally thousands of companies and people who would take advantage of someone else's work and give nothing in return.
My look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation shows it was founded with two primary purposes:
- Tax dodge--giving money to a charity reduces his personal income taxes. By giving it to a charity he controls, he gets additional benefits.
- As PR for Microsoft against the anti-trust investigation.
Bill Gates has been rich since the 1980s, but his Foundation didn't really get any significant money until 1999. And then Bill then realized around 2004 that he could run his Foundation as his "retirement", and so started giving it more focus.
By checking out the contributions provided at www.gatesfoundation.org, you can see (this is complicated by the fact he had two charities, with the primary one now being the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation):
- As of 1998, Bill Gates had donated a grand total of $300million to both of his charities. That's not for that year, that's over all previous years combined, with interest/appreciation. This number is embarrassingly low for a person worth $100billion. However, it's probably just about the right amount to maximize his tax savings on a yearly basis. Also, the charity was building an endowment, and not spending all that much money.
- Then suddenly, in 1999, in the middle of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit, he gives $15 billion. He gives another $5 billion in 2000.
- Then, once the anti-trust lawsuit effectively ended, in 2001, he gives $0. Yup, check it out yourself. Probably because he took a loss that year due to the stock market drop, didn't need the tax writeoff anymore, and didn't need the PR.
- In 2002, he gives $82.5million, again, back to the tax dodge. He gives $81.9 million in 2003. He's still worth $40-50 billion dollars due to Microsoft stock.
- In 2004, he starts to give his charity a little more notice, and starts donating $700million in 2004, $442 million in 2005, $333million in 2006, and $1.2billion in 2007.
I wouldn't be surprised if the recipients of his money found it had lots of strings attached, but I'm not interested enough to dig up all this dirt. Although it's nice he's giving some of his money away, IMNSHO, it's just about the least he could do (except for the $20billion PR stunt). I also think the expenses for this foundation are quite high, and are probably more of a tax dodge. The foundation also spends considerably less than he has contributed, so it's building a very large endowment. It seems benign. So far.
I liken it to a king tossing silver coins to the rabble around his carriage--but doing it only when the press is around.
Richard Stallman is not about freedom. Richard Stallman only cares about end-user freedom.
But I fail to see why end user freedom should be more important than the developer's freedom to choose. It's almost as if developers were evil by default from his point of view. Unless of course they embrace the GPL.
diegoT
Careful, a similar argument was once used (and occasionally still is) to claim that communism with its central planning was superior economically because the competition of capitalism involved wasteful duplication of effort. The claim proved a bit flawed when put to the test.
(note: I am not comparing free or open source software to communism. Just the arguments to arguments supporting communism)
There are whole medical labs dedicated to fighting TB and AIDS in southern Africa that wouldn't exist without the Bill&Melinda foundation. How is that hurting anything?
Gates said 30 years ago that all the work he invested in making some programs should be paid back by the people "stealing" his products. But then he imposes a very expensive tax for ALL computer users in the world. And then he plays dirty to make sure other people don't give the public better and cheaper products (I'm talking before the Free Software revolution happened).
Don't you think that's being a little hypocritical about it?
By forcing governments to use expensive Microsoft products you prevent said countries from using all that money for better causes, i.e. fighting AIDS and diseases, developing a solid independent industry, investing in education, etc. It's like taking money destined to the poor, and then donating a tiny bit of it to the poor and getting praised for that. My point is that the money the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation gives to the poor can't even be compared to the money they took from other countries and would end up in the hands of the poor sooner or later.
YOU CAN'T ERASE ALL YOUR BAD DEEDS BY DOING A SMALL GOOD DEED!
Really - do you think that someone who became millionaire by forcibly collecting money from nearly anyone, including taxpayers, who end up paying taxes for Microsoft Software (including Vista) installed in government offices (and that's AROUND THE WORLD - so that's a double Microsoft tax, not only for you, sir, but for all citizens of all countries) is really a charitative person?
Give me a fucking break.
This is EXACTLY THE SAME THING that the US has done. First they force their expensive products down the throats of foreign countries, raising their debts and increasing poverty. But instead of helping those countries develop their industries and invest in education, they give them "money for the poor" with the condition of investing in birth control (because we can't have poor people have many kids, think of the poor single mothers with 10 children!).
It's people like Bill Gates and company who help maintain the international Status Quo.
Citations badly needed.
This discussion is about free software versus Microsoft software, and it's fairly well-established that Microsoft software has a much higher TCO than best-of-breed free software.
I know there are probably quite a few studies out there that you can point me to that prove this (or claim to) but of course I could go out and find some that "prove" the exact opposite. Yeah, granted, we know who pays for a lot of the studies that claim MS has lower TCO. I tend to think your claim is right but the problem is that there are people with an agenda on both sides and that always makes it hard to sort out. Well, it's never hard if you've already made up your mind, of course.
When you consider how much money Microsoft drains from various countries' economies...
How much? Is that much money really being spent on software compared to the money needed for other issues? Even if the number is so big why would so much money be spent on software? In that case it sounds like there is a more fundamental issue of screwed-up priorities. And in the end people do have choices, even if MS is quite influential and willing to resort to scummy tactics.
Yup, poor African countries pay so much for Microsoft Windows they can't afford to build hospitals.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
$500 covers the cost of Windows Server, plus CAL's, plus Exchange, plus Outlook licenses? Wow. Either you have very few users (if so, take a look at Scalix Community edition), or you are not counting the cost of all your expenditure.
The economics issue extends to the operations of Bill and Melinda's "charitable" giving as well. You see, the foundation actively opposes generic drugs. I'm not one to suggest Bill is malicious. He really truly believes that the free market doesn't work, that government must establish artificial monopolies on ideas, and his foundation would like to apply the same principles that enabled Microsoft to dominate the US software market to the world pharmaceutical market.
People disagree. Others believe that the market should be left to its own devices and find its own equilibrium. Some would say that denying access to generic drugs by pressuring governments to avoid doing business with companies that produce them, and by also pressuring them to establish, practice and enforce US laws establishing artificial monopolies over ideas on their soil (this is ironically called "free trade"), is causing great harm to the world's poor. Yes, even killing them.
The debate about the usefulness of artificially concentrating great wealth in the hands of the very few so that these superior intellects may shower the rest of us with their munificence extends beyond the world of software. It's entirely appropriate that RMS would be discussing these issues as they relate to the Gates' "charitable" foundation, which invests in the very pharmaceutical companies who's profits are tied to squashing competition from generic drug manufacturers. Thank god someone is doing it, because heaven knows we can't count on our self-interested media conglomerates to provide any kind of balanced perspective.
Ahem, ahem...
I am not really impressed by B&M gates foundation... and the use they have given to it:
e-Mexico.
Which was about to be kickstarted with Open Source (with the backup of HP, IBM, Sun, etc)... until Bill Gates went to Mexico to speak with Presidente Fox... aaaaand, guess what:
Microsoft has pledged $60 million in software and training to help fund Internet kiosks that are being built in remote communities. The software maker has also allotted $10 million to train workers in small and mid-size businesses, along with an additional grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the country's VAMOS MEXICO program to be used to move the country's libraries online.
Ohh, Vamos Mexico... the foundation from Fox's wife which has been investigated for allegued corruption practices.
Oh yes, B&M Gates foundation are God's messengers.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
You know what thought just occurred to me? What if RMS is really just another twitter sockpuppet?
I think that the real question is, what if twitter and all of the others are RMS sockpuppets?
Maybe if you stopped sucking your own cock every now and then, you'd have a better self-image.
Guys who can suck their own cock don't need better self-image.
Richard Matthew Stallman designed and championed the GPL, the license under which Linux is provided. It is that umbrella philosophy that allows Linux to be the powerhouse that it is today. No company can use the work of others on Linux to engage in adversarial, tricky, sneaky behavior.
To even imply that such philanthropy is harming the thirld world is nothing less than criminal.
No, what is criminal is that people like you take it for granted that dumping large amounts of "aid" on third world countries is going to help them. There is not a single nation in the world that has come out of poverty through external aid.
but you can go too far.
Yes, you did go too far. It's people like you that condemn millions to die every year by offering them handouts and creating dependencies instead of real economic development and progress. You're the real criminal.
I don't think it's an accident that Bill's interest has turned to pharmaceuticals. (1) There's a lot more money involved, and (2) software doesn't help you live longer.
Therefore, if problems are solved using free software instead of proprietary software, society will have a lot of money left over to spend on fixing disease, starvation, etc.
Newsflash!
You can find it all (pay-ware and free-ware) for next to nothing on torrents.
And yes - "society" does that.
You think third world countries give a flying fuck about RIAA and Microsoft (no.. wait...) Micro$oft (thats better) and whoever else it is that is the target of the day because they demand that you keep paying for your electrons over and over?
Ummm.. NO!
Why is that mythical "Year of Linux on Desktop" not coming yet? .DOCX and .XLS to .PSD and .DWG.
Because it is simpler to get pirated software. It costs the same. AND - it is more compatible. Yes - COMPATIBLE.
With those proprietary "industry standard" file formats every single software and hardware company keeps trying to push. From
Its there. For free. Download it. Use the crack or serial you got with your rared install. It works.
Free software? As in speech or as in beer? Who gives a fuck?
All software is for free!
Illegal? Where? Somewhere in Russia?
Sure... you go and explain it to them door to door. Or implement a lock that a 12 year old hackers will crack over weekend.
I'm sure half of India and China is losing sleep over it too.
And all those Africans without electricity and drinking water... oh boy... they must be thinking day and night about the illegality of software piracy and problems proprietary software causes to the "society".
They probably wake up screaming "AAAH! Bill Gates is coming to eat our children and make us use Office 2007!! RUN! RUUUUN!!!"
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
More:
Quotes from Richard Matthew Stallman:
"Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, that you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone."
"Fighting software patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria."
"Free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'."
More quotes:
"People get the government their behavior deserves. People deserve better than that."
"Odious ideas are not entitled to hide from criticism behind the human shield of their believers' feelings."
"Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral." (Slashdot interview, 1 May 2000)
He mentioned that while all of the biology and engineering tech were all IP'd up, the software side was FOSS -- Google Cytoscape to look up their software project. Predictably, he mentioned that Bill Gates was against this arrangement, and Lee Hood mentioned it took a lot of upper-management pep talk and persuasion to get his in-house software people to be happy about it as well.
I didn't bother asking Lee Hood questions about the software aspects as it was a biology symposium and the grad students were more interested in the biology aspects of the project, but I looked up Cytoscape, and guess what, it is written and extendable in Java. And this is largely on Bill and Melinda's dime.
It's about a communist as labour unions. In a free (information) society, people are free to gather and fix prices and demands collectively. And why shouldn't they ? This is not problematic, or at odds with capitalism at all. What /is/ problematic is that companies aren't allowed to do the same. There are laws against price cartels. Unless you're big oil, of course. Then it's all good and natural.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
However, without Microsoft software, we would have never seen the price of computing dive into regular joe range. The FSF didn't accomplish anything noteworthy without Linus' blind and aggressive campaign to write a great kernel for some strange reason.
I don't believe BSD would have ever become Linux had the Linux movement not existed. As far as I remember, the free software movement that Linux is a part of actually came from DOS hackers. That's what gives Linux its feel- it's a 386 unix, not a unix for 386. In other words, it's not about unix, it's about the PC- and the PC begins with Microsoft.
RMS is simply unable to look at the reality of the PC revolution and how it affected the open source world. Microsoft helped drop these cheap little computers into peoples' laps and stick them on the internet. The universities were never going to create anything usable without all those dedicated DOS hackers. The world without Microsoft and Linux is a world of extremely expensive corporate unices and obscure free software projects furnished like plan9. Without the drive towards accessibility, perhaps Apple would have been our Microsoft and Amiga our Apple? Without Microsoft undercutting the computing industry for years, perhaps the free software movement would never have any target to aim for.
Even Firefox comes from Mozilla which comes from Netscape which was quite popular on Windows. When you remember that hatred of Windows ME and IE 5-6 has driven so many developers to work on alternatives, doesn't it seem unlikely that a software counter-culture like F/OSS would ever be at its strength without a culture to counter?
You see, there's this thing called economics. Third world countries often find themselves in a situation where they're bombarded by vendors who know how sell to a third world government- because they don't have the economic clout to throw their weight around. An open source scion does not arrive in a taxi cab and convert the government- a big corporation treats a warlord to a nice dinner and tells him how their product will make his country strong and respected. If it weren't Microsoft (it isn't Microsoft all the time anyway), it would be IBM (remember, the old Microsoft), Sun, or some other tech vendor.
"Just because something benefits the society as a whole doesn't make it communistic---if it were, Soviet Russia must've been a paradise."
Do you even know the definition of communism? Here it is:
"a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state."
This sounds exactly like software licensed under the GNU license. It's owned by the community, rather than an individual (or the state...which in this case is the FSF).
Why is it so hard for the open source community to admit that it is software communism?
... what would free software copy then?
You honestly think open source encourages competition? I removes all competition, which isn't the same thing.
Only in the sense that outcompeting someone so that they go to the wall removes competition. However:
Protection of competition does not mean protection from competitors.
Wikileaks, no DNS
"Oh be creative! Free software is, as far as the whole of society is concerned, much cheaper than proprietary software, because society only has to pay to solve (the software portion of) a particular problem once. Therefore, if problems are solved using free software instead of proprietary software, society will have a lot of money left over to spend on fixing disease, starvation, etc."
The cost of actual software is very little compared the cost of support, which is still a significant cost when using "free" software.
"When you consider how much money Microsoft drains from various countries' economies, it's easy to see how the money could be put to better use."
If you want someone to blame for starvation and death in various countries around the world, don't blame Microsoft..blame the countries government..they are most likely the problem.
Free software is ironically both communist-ic (yay collective good) and free-market-istic (the price of the software is the marginal cost of production of one copy, or, um, zero!) It's rather fun. Not too many markets work out that way.
What "collective good"? That might be the case if rms (or FSF) is proposing that software need to be released into the public domain, but even with copyleft, copyright is still individual property*.
That's a false dichotomy. If public good and individual rights are in "conflict", a free society isn't possible. Which I'm sure some power lusting types would hope we believe but it's just not true.
The FOSS world has found a way to drive public benefit via self interest. If I need software X and write it for my own benefit, I can GPL it and others can benefit "for free" with no loss to myself (as there is no "right to profit", profit is earned, not guaranteed).
Others in general (collectively as it were) can benefit from the results of my own selfish motivations. After all, I wanted/needed software X. I'm getting something out of my work. If you benefit, that's nice but wasn't my point. Put a million selfish motivations together and you can end up with entire operating systems that cost "nothing" (as it were) and anybody can benefit. Everybody gets to go along for the ride.
And I think the idea of the GPL is actually closer to the spirit of copyright as the Founders intended. The public can benefit from the selfish motivations of the individual. Copyright was intended to "encourage the useful arts and sciences". Not create the RIAA. Not give fat old men in executive offices yet another yacht. The idea was an inducement to the creative to create.
The best systems find ways to channel self interest in directions that are good for everybody at large. The "conflict" is an illusion and one that should be viewed with deep suspicion when pushed by some one or some group. After all, the systems in which you benefit but I lose are such as when you point a gun at me and take my wallet.
Oh, please! Why do people persist with this "Free Software is communism" garbage? It is really annoying and not very intelligent.
The primary gripe associated with communism is the necessary element of autocracy, either by a small elite or society in general. Basically, the individual sacrifices his rights to society and is coerced to do so ("The good of the many outweighs the good of the few." If you want to use Star Trek terminology). Society works as a unit to produce for all, and individuals do not have the choice to not participate.
Free Software on the other hand is a hack to compensate for something that should never have existed in the first place: proprietary software. There is no universal, natural, moral or other Right embodied in copyright. It is a revocable privilege, originally limited to commercial transactions and limited in duration. While Congress has the power to create it, Congress is not required to. If it is revoked, no one can seek compensation. It is subordinate to Natural Rights such as those embodied in the Bill of Rights.
Copyright was never intended to cover something like software. Software is not an artistic work (although some people manage to make it artistic). It is a functional work. As such, a monopoly incentive is unnecessary. Businesses will pay for software to be developed even if they cannot restrict its distribution by any legal means. People will write software because they want their computers to do things they cannot currently do. This will never change, and the monopoly privilege only inhibits these processes by forcing the constant reinvention of the wheel.
Copyright also restricts a natural and universal right necessary for every Free Society: Free Speech. Copyright makes certain speech controllable, which makes it NOT Free. Liberal Democracies are literally inconceivable in the absence of Free Speech. In the absence of copyright, however, few things in our current world -- except for millionaire record execs -- are inconceivable.
Monopolies are anti-capitalist. Monopolies, like copyright, are a relic of Feudal system that the Revolution of 1776, the one that everybody was celebrating yesterday, toppled. This is the autocratic system where monarchs got to say who could do business with whom and where and when. The establishment of the United States happened as a reaction to monopolies and other trade restrictions. Unless one claims the Authors of the Constitution of the United States were communists, nothing that is anti-monopoly, like Free Software, can be called "communist".
Therefore, the true communists are people who would treat information -- speech -- like property, people who use the term "Intellectual Property". These are the people who wish to assert Feudal monopoly privileges in order to gain an unfair market advantage and charge unreasonable fees for their services. This are people who want the state to enforce their predatory taxation on society. Bill Gates is precisely this sort of communist, and his attempts to bring 1984 to our desktops (no, I am not inclined to provide a list. There should be no shortage of evidence on the net for the curious) is precisely the opposite of Freedom and Free Software.
Communists are people who do not believe in Free Software.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Yeah, and we all know people that use Linux instead donate the cost of the Windows license to charity.
Therefore, if problems are solved using free software instead of proprietary software, society will have a lot of money left over to spend on fixing disease, starvation, etc.
Wrong. Unless all those software developers who would have been writing software now switch over to doing the medical research, which some of which are certainly not cut out for, then society
STILL has to support those developers in some way, like preventing them from starving. Its possible that it would actually make the problem worse, not better.
Good, this at least partially offsets the amount of money we send to Asia on a yearly basis buying junk made there. We have a foreign trade DEFICIT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_deficit), not surplus, meaning that all that money Bill is draining from the rest of the world STILL isn't enough to make up for how much America is giving to the rest of the world ( Middle Eastern oil, Far East consumer goods/electronics, and other crap ).
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I'm tired of people making the leap from free software to communism. Yes it's a socialist concept, sharing with the community, but it's also a libertarian concept, protecting freedoms as in free speech.
Libertarian Socialism? Compare and contrast with Anarchism, but anarchism in a world where there is significantly fewer resources to fight over.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
An authour of a piece of GPL software can re-release it under a different license, assuming of course he is the only once who has been working on it. And it's also possible to withhold your own changes to someone else's GPL program, if you're using it internally.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
You see, the foundation actively opposes generic drugs.
citation?
It's amazing how many people are pretending to be charitable. It's amazing how well that works with the public. Basically, someone who made billions of dollars with tricky, sneaky, unethical business methods can gain a positive image by spending a little of that money on public relations.
So Bill Gates is a ruthless capitalist who have built an empire by screwing over the empires of other ruthless capitalists? I have a hard time seeing how that can be "more evil" than it is "good" to give away that same money to people that actually need them. It is not like Netscape's presidents are sleeping on the streets because evil Microsoft bundled IE with Windows.
Football Odds
Actually, Foo is simultaneously right and wrong regarding the nature of Free Software.
The reason is that it's not "communist-ic" but it is strongly "libertarian" in philosophy.
That is because licenses such as the GPL only bind developers who voluntarily use Free Software as a starting point for their own efforts, and does not inhibit others who choose not to participate. It does, however, require that those who do participate in the development of the code and direct derivitave works follow the rules and provide their work back to the community. It is actually the license fee to do so.
We tend to view fees as monetary flows from "Party A" to "Party B", but Free Software is more akin to a "barter economy" instead.
Any scheme that is "communist" or "socialist" requires mandatory participation. A "communist-ic" scheme would require that even from-scratch code would immediately become a publicly-owned work.
It is noteworthy that Free Software does allow anyone to republish and distribute copies at any desired price, so long as the source code is made available for no charge or basically "at cost".
It's important to further clarify that sometimes terms become muddy in popular use.
"Communist" and "Socialist" really mean "slave to the commune, with no option whatsoever."
The term "free market" is a market without external pressures of whatever kind used to create artificial barriers to entry or change.
"Libertarian" indicates the individual choice of who each individual chooses to participate with. It is based on voluntary cooperation and participation, not coersion and force, but does recognize defense.
In practice, all these get jumbled together, shaken, stirred, bent, folded, spindled and mutilated until none of them are recognizable.
It's called fascism (in the Mussolini form), and basically is a merger of government and business. It's a centrally planned and controlled system with private ownership and profits.
Really, it is an oligarchy run by elitists, and is not terribly different from feudalism.
This is like the worst argument EVER against FOSS's NATURAL way of promoting competition.
Without VNC, my friend, we would ALL be FUCKING STUCK with citrix: a sole vendor solution that sort-of, kind-of, works for basically ONE platform.
With VNC, MANY vendors can enter that arena and compete on the same base differentiating their product as they go along.
Now the trick here is that by your thinking, VNC shouldve been closed source to "compete" with citrix. But, you see, competition is almost never really exclusively a product vs. product issue. Competition happens in the market: brand positioning, sales capacity, market prescence, all of that is more important than the solution itself (if this wasnt the case, microsoft wouldve died with winME).
However, if you pick up an IBM HS21 bladecenter, youll see it integrates VNC as the thingie (horrendous by the way) through which you work with your blade servers.
If you pick up plenty of remote administration solutions that include seamless remote installing and filecopying, those include the VNC protocol as well, but add it other values...
Etc, etc, etc. The idea of remote viewing thingies in computers is NOT a citrix idea. Its NOT a UNIX idea. Its NOT a windows idea. For christ sakes, LICKLIDER's team (talk about ancient history), had already forseen it!
Propietary software provides imaginary walls to protect imaginary "inventions" that are nobodie's in the first place: it stiffles innovation by allowing basically pirates of other people ideas and granting them monopolies over basic simple stuff that are OBVIOUS WAYS one would use a computer since the DAMNED THING was invented properly (read Lickliders essays, in particular: The Computer as a Communications Device... we are talking 1962 at the latest, if i recall correctly).
NO SIG
Forced? No. Made it a much better choice in the short term with the intention of bending them over long term, sure. Took advantage of corrupt leadership and politicians, sure. Evil, sure. Forced, no.
Much like fixing what Microsoft has done too America requires fixing our politicians, fixing the 'problems' Microsoft has caused other countries requires fixing the politicians.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I'm a Linux zealot. I haven't used a Microsoft product out of free will since 1999. But even so, I do admire Bill's work when it comes to fighting diseases, starvation, and so forth. More below:
society will have a lot of money left over to spend on fixing disease, starvation, etc.
In an ideal society - yes. And heck - I would absolutely prefer that various countries choose to use Linux (or BSD) instead of Windows. I especially think that third world countries should do so. But! That doesn't help your argument.
The thing is, most third world countries aren't ideal countries. There is a huge lot of corruption, inefficiency, and so forth.
I'm pretty sure that more of the money third world countries pay for microsoft products - end up as paying for fighting disease, starvation, and so forth - than money _earmarked_ for doing exactly that in many of the countries in question. Why? Because the Bill and Melissa gates foundation tries to make sure that their money is used efficiently (if I remember correctly).
I still would rather that they used free software, instead of being locked in. I think the countries would benefit from it in the long run. But I very, very much respect Bill Gates for how he spends his money on charity.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
I'll agree with your definition of totalitarian communism, but I would not equalize socialism with it.
Also libertarian simply means that one believes that individual rights and freedoms come before the rights and freedoms of the community as whole. So for example restricting what items one can bring on an airplane (taking away of individual freedom) to prevent mid flight terrorist attack (and protect the larger community consisting of people on the flight and possibly ground) is against libertarian view.
However, one can be perfectly libertarian and socialist in outlook. There is nothing wrong with valuing individual rights and freedoms but also supporting national health care and welfare, which are institutions made for the common good. In the end everyone ends up better off with these. Note that these are not rights nor freedoms. These are simply institutions designed to work well for all and not just economic elite.
Look at majority of Western Europe, which is mostly libertarian and socialist esp Scandinavian countries, Austria, France with 5 week vacations, national health care, and individual rights and freedoms.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Not quite. It was found that for certain types of goods and services ( healthcare, education, defense etc... )it worked rather well. In fact, it works so well that even the USA is considering to finance healthcare through a centrally planned system rather than the free market. They don't say it too loudly, and obscure what it really is by calling it other things, but that is essentially what is being done.
The flaw of comunism was not that it recognised that SOME goods and services were better provided throughc entral planning, the flaw was that it assumed that the best way to provide one type of good would necessarily be the best way for ALL goods. In reality central planning works well when goods have large positive externalities, and especially so for public goods. Conversely a free market works well for goods that have no, or minor , externalities, and fails horribly in other cases ( pollution, health care, etc.. ).
The flaw of capitalism is the same as the flaw of communism. It is based on an assumption that all goods and services are equivalent. In reality the extent to which suplier and consumer in a private market pay and benefit from all the effects of a good ( positive as well as negative ) depend greatly upon how much third parties are affected by the goods production and use. For some goods the costs and benefits are accounted for almost completely by the market , for these goods capitalism works well. For other goods there are large external costs and benefits that the market doesn't care about. For these goods capitalism fails horribly.
If you knew your economics you would be well aware that capitalism as well as comunisms are naive generalisations of principles that only hold true under very specific conditions.
And he slips in a claim that the Bill and Melinda Gates charity foundation doesn't really help the poor; it just pretends to while actually subjecting them to greater harm.
And how does Richard Stallman help the poor outside of the FSF work? I guess all the ranting he does on his website about harry potter books, cell phones, lets boycott "everything" and removing passwords from their WiFi hubs will help out poor people.
I can never understand why people call this guy an activist, the activists I know actually do something about things they feel strongly about rather than talk about it or get others to do it for them; which from what his web site seems to promote.
So putting aside the software stuff what has this guy even done that is meaningful? I mean if he is going to attack the Gates' on things they do outside of MS time for him to fess up to what he as done for humanity outside of the FSF.
Great propoganda speech. Too bad it doesn't add up.
Communism as an economic model has nothing against free speech. The bulk of your post is your insistance that intellectual property and copyrights are evil. Why?
Programmers deserve to get paid as well. You insist proprietary software should never exist and that level of fanaticism isn't based on logic. Proprietary and OSS both have their places.
I often advocate for the use of OSS, but true freedom is allowing a developer to protect their works and profit from them, or give them openly as they choose to do so.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Sorry, I don't buy it. It's like saying all the money spent on Iraq would have been spent on healthcare if we hadn't invaded Iraq. It wouldn't have been spent on Iraq, but it's not like Bush sat down and said "Okay, healthcare, or invasion..." when deciding what he wanted to do over his morning lucky charms or whatever. The money wasn't previously allocated to healthcare, just like the Windows license money wasn't previously budgeted for charity by most people. (Note to morons: plz don't take this as an opening to debate Iraq/national healthcare, as I am not going to argue either in a slashdot thread about RMS and Microsoft, or any slashdot thread, for that matter. This applies to all sides of both issues.)
Also, how many Linux users build their system from the ground up? I did, and not really to avoid the Microsoft "tax" (though I admit that was part of it) -- I did it to be sure the hardware freaking worked in Linux. Or what about people using second hand computers? Or converts after the fact? Dual booters?
If you don't want to pay Microsoft, you can find a way, and sometimes it will end up saving you more than just avoiding their license fees.
I work for an organization (www.fhi.org) that gets quite a bit of money from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for any number of health related studies and/or programs. For him to say what he did shows that he has no idea what he is talking about, as the programs they sponsor serve a definite need.
No, the foundation cannot solve all the issues that these people face. Whether it is a lack of viable employment, stable food/water supply, sanitary living conditions, or just a dictator who generally opresses them, their problems are much greater than just general health.
I've got news for you Richard: Open source software isn't the solution to their problems either.
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
The catch with Copyright in the US is that it was originally 14 years, but laws have pushed it all the way up to the author's lifetime plus 70 years (or a flat 95 years on works made for hire, such as movies and music).
Unfortunately, when Eldred v. Ashcroft pointed out that this was contrary to the purpose of copyright as laid down by the Constitution, the Supreme Court gave a ruling that as long as the length was not infinite, it was not in violation of the Constitution.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
And here is why you are wrong.
You are assuming that CEO's are concerned with the welfare of others, specifically the next CEO.
If a Pharma companies found a cure for AIDS, the CEO and board would make BILLIONS for themselves in bonuses because there profits would skyrocket.
Sure in 5 years when the money started to level off they would make less profit,but why would the CEO give a rip?
God help the CEO if the shareholders found out he withheld a cure, because there shares prices would triple.
In short, there is no motivation for the people the run companies to kept it away from the public.
5 years would be very quick too. It would take years and years to get everyone cured. My point would be true if id manufacturing and distribution was instantaneously.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In October 2006 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was split into two entities: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, which manages the endowment assets and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which "... conducts all operations and grantmaking work, and it is the entity from which all grants are made." Also announced was the decision to "... spend all of [the Trust's] resources within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths." This would close the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust and effectively end the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ... Warren Buffett has stipulated that the proceeds from the Berkshire Hathaway shares he still owns at death are to be used for philanthropic purposes within 10 years after his estate has been settled.
The plan to close the Foundation Trust is in contrast to most large charitable foundations that have no set closure date. This should lead to lower administrative costs over the years of the Foundation Trust's life and ensure that the Foundation Trust not fall into a situation where the vast majority of its expenditures are on administrative costs, including salaries, with only token amounts contributed to charitable causes. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Actually, I'd say that the two main examples of communism - Russia and China - showed it to be a raging success. Let's not forget that, when communists came to power, Russia was a backwards agrarian society which had just lost World War I and had it's government collapse, and China was little more than a bad joke, having been a partially occupied and economically abused puppet of both West and Japan for years, not to mention having gone through several civil wars and in fact being in the middle of one.
Both states became superpowers under communist rule. Of course they were also dictatorships with a habit of disappearing anyone opposing the rulers, but that had always been true for both; neither China nor Russia had ever been democracies nor even moderately free societies in their histories, and arguably still aren't.
So no, communism hasn't been the unmitigated disaster people often think it was for the states which tried it. The problems associated with it come from the social conditions and traditions prior to the revolution, and the process of revolution itself. For countries which adopted left-leaning policies in a peaceful fashion and didn't succumb to dictatorship and personality cults, they have been extremely helpful; see the Nordic countries, for example.
So no, I don't think "sounds like communism" is a valid counterargument to anything.
The irony here is that free software, by putting the means of production into the hands of the users, pretty much accomplishes the basic idea of communism (which was that labourers, not factory-owners, should get the profit from their labour).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
NO. The founding father who fought for copyright specifically did it so the author of the works can make money, and the public can benefit. Just not at the same time.
Interesting that the 'poor widow' who needed to make from their work argument was trotted out.
What tge founding fathers Did Not Want, was anybody to be able to lock up copyright for a long period of time.
That was due to the damage copyright was doing to English society for the past 100 years before America was created.
From what I have read, I'm pretty sure if the founding fathers saw what's happening today, copyright in the constitution wouldn't be there, and they might have gone with one of the original idea to outlaw corporations; which also was doing series harm in England.
I suspect you misunderstand what I was saying. The Founders meant to create incentive for the creative to produce. The GPL (et al) has managed to something very similar. The selfish interest of uncounted numbers of programmers is producing works that are beneficial to many.
That we've gone and turned copyright into a black hole from which nothing creative can ever emerge is a whole other issue. The Founders did blow it big time when they ignored Jefferson's call to specify the term of the monopolies in the Constitution. He also wanted the Constitution to require the grants have narrow scope.
We're living to regret that blunder.
Not so much I'd say. The GPL rests on copyright law and derives its power from same. If you had no such monopoly grant, you couldn't put restrictions on the use of the work by others which the GPL does. If everything was public domain, you couldn't tell Microsoft (or Apple, who uses FreeBSD) they can't take the work and lock it up. You really would be doing "free work" for a corporation.
Used correctly, copyright can be a beneficial tool. That we've done our best to wreck it in this country notwithstanding.
The catch with Copyright in the US is that it was originally 14 years, but laws have pushed it all the way up to the author's lifetime plus 70 years (or a flat 95 years on works made for hire, such as movies and music).
Unfortunately, when Eldred v. Ashcroft pointed out that this was contrary to the purpose of copyright as laid down by the Constitution, the Supreme Court gave a ruling that as long as the length was not infinite, it was not in violation of the Constitution.
Didn't you just love that dodge? The court has handed down some rulings in recent years that just reek. Why not "life of the universe" then? I mean, that's not infinite near as we can tell. Okay, just in case it is, let's use "until the sun burns out"!
No, they had plenty of precedent to ignore to get where their corporate masters wanted them to go. Including, as you point out, that the people who wrote the Constitution passed a law of 14 years maximum. Which rather gives us a clue they didn't intend "infinity and beyond".
ideology in modern western capitalistic world already ?
the right to retirement, weekly vacation days, daily working hour limits, job safety are all modern concepts that were only possible by pressure the socialist and communist revolutions of early 19th century, but especially 1848. still for these to come to fruition we had to wait until the advent of 20th century, and we are only able to have a civil working environment just for the last 60 years or so. before that, especially in 19th century, corporations were using people virtually as slaves - a few hours off for sunday mass, rest of the week hard work with pathetic pay for 10+ hours with no safety or guarantees and any retirement rights.
all the concept of preventing monopolies so there could actually be equal rights to compete comes from the socialistic ideals of late 19th century. yet still it took 2 presidents (theodore R and franklin D R) to get this important precondition of life to become a reality and liberated usa from the hands of 4 to 5 big robber barons you can easily name, even now.
i really detest people who put forward prejudices about stuff without knowing history.
Read radical news here
Well let me explain something to you.
1 Curing Malaria would not be on small deed.
Also do you know just how small a percentage Windows is in the average small countries IT budget?
You do know that they use Windows for the desktop because for many tasks it is still the cheapest and best solution?
How is Microsoft FORCING governments to use Windows? What exactly is stopping them from Using Macs, Linux, or BSD?
I really don't Microsoft and I do like, use, and support FOSS but you are foaming at the mouth.
If the Gates Foundation finds a cure for Malaria, helps control TB, or finds a cure for AIDS then yes NOBODY will remember anything Microsoft did wrong. What is probably more to the point in 100 years William Gates will be remembered as a great man that made his money running some software company.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Yes, many will not concur with Richard, but the truth is that the foundation IS Bill Gates PR arm. I give you the example of Mexico's enciclomedia project (which was an absolute failure): with the simplest menace of the country's strategy of including linux as a base platform for millions of computers for elementary schools, the B&MG foundation (after a lightning trip of ballmer and gates to personally talk to President Fox) donated 40 million dollars worth of boxes with a simple, little string attached: it HAS to run Microsoft Windows.
also : :
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
Also, as an earlier poster mentioned :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticisms
also this
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4103.htm
Read radical news here
Furthermore there is still the question as to how microsoft was supposed to make money as a FOSS company.
The argument is often made that Microsoft is simply backwards and stupid for *Not* being a FOSS company and that they themselves would have profited and or would profit by switching to an open source model.
I would ask these people to cite a consumer Open Source company in existence.
"Sell support contracts". Oh really? When was the last time you personally purchased a support contract for a consumer piece of software? Microsoft has set its sights from almost the get go on the home. The home doesn't know what a "Support Contract" is. You give a consumer software which is free except for a "Support contract" and you've just given away the software for nothing.
Before people can make a solid argument against closed source as an unprofitable and backwards sales model they need to prove the viability of open source for consumers not just huge datacenters and fortune 500 companies.
I am not prepared to swallow this notion whole.
WordPerfect thought it had the Almost Perfect word processor for the PC.
The DOS era ends and the era of MS Word, Windows and Office begins. The web begins to weave its spell and SharePoint becomes a billion dollar node in the evolving MS Office eco-system.
OpenOffice.org is funded and staffed by Sun.
The Mozilla Foundation receives about 85% of its funding from Google.
This tells me that the problems of the office suite and the browser are not solved and that society is still paying the price for development - and contributing to the profit margins of their corporate sponsors - even when these programs nominally evolve through open source.
The bill is simply hidden in the price of shopping through Google or in purchases of goods and services from Sun.
That raises the interesting question of whether this model is not in fact regressive. When your project is funded through Ad-Sense is it the WalMart shopper who keeps it afloat?
Microsoft is building a $300 million research campus for 5,000 in Beijing's university district.
It's true that 60% of Microsoft's revenues come from outside the U.S. It's also true that Microsoft is a significant employer and investor outside the U.S.
The multinational corporation is not the one-way street the Geek pretends.
the obvious rebuttal is that communism relied on 'central planning' to manage scarce resources, like labor and equipment while free software - and all other ideas - are abundant resources that remain the product of free markets in scarce resources labor and equipment.
Except that you, like many other FOSS proponents, leave out one hugely critical piece of the equation: how do FOSS programmers support themselves? Past surveys have shown that FOSS projects are almost always started and maintained by people who program proprietary, non-FOSS software for a living. Ergo, proprietary, non-FOSS software for profit is an absolute necessity in order to support the FOSS community.
Now, some FOSS projects are given away free but with paid-for support infrastructures. This is a great idea, but it damages quite a bit of the we're-cheaper-than-non-FOSS argument. Study after study -- and your own argument -- holds that initial purchase price is an almost-insignificant piece of the TCO. If I get a piece of software for free but pay the same to support it as I would've a proprietary solution, I've gained little or nothing in the process.
And don't say I've gained independence, or I'm supporting "the movement" or any other ideology-based argument. I don't give two damns about where my software comes from or what economic model supports it. I care that it (a) performs the function I want it to perform with reasonable efficiency and reliability, and (b) I want the cost of the software to be reasonably related to the value I extract from it. Leave the preaching and proselytizing to the RMS's of the world.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I call bullshit on this.
I call bullshit on your bullshit.
1. Microsoft didn't even target "regular Joe" computers. They aimed to capture the enterprise market, and succeeded. Their software was extremely boring to the "regular Joe", but they managed to estabilish themselves as a de facto standard, and then creeped into the home desktop.
That's a very ignorant statement. On the contrary, Microsoft was always interested in home machines, since the beginning; they wrote code for the hobbyist Altair systems before the PC was even a gleam in IBM's eye. In the eighties, Microsoft defined the MSX standard specifically for home computers. Microsoft was one of the first companies to release games on the PC, with the first version of Flight Simulator available in '82.
2. Microsoft was at the right place in the right time, and their monopoly was essentially sponsored by IBM - any other company would have done the job as well.
3. The first "regular Joe" computers - ZX Spectrum, Atari, Commodore, Amiga - had nothing to do with Microsoft.
Shows what you know. The Commodore and the Amiga all shipped with BASIC written by and licensed from Microsoft. The Atari also licensed the language from MS, and sold it as a separate product. Microsoft also released a lot of software for Apple - guess who wrote the most popular BASIC for the Apple II? That's right, Microsoft. And Word for the Apple Macintosh was available in 1985, very soon after the Macintosh release in 1984.
4. The real reason why the price of computing dived were related to the price of hardware falling dramatically over a short period
So, you're saying the price of computers went down because the price of computers went down. BZZT! The price went down because of the commoditization of computing, because of the huge economies of scale mass production allows. And mass production become possible because people suddenly wanted computers, and bought them in droves. And, except for a technically savvy minority, people didn't want computers for the processor they had inside. They wanted them for the software running on them, for games, word processing, desktop publishing (which was quite a buzzword at a time).
When you consider how much money Microsoft drains from various countries' economies, it's easy to see how the money could be put to better use.
You seriously overestimate Microsoft. Their annual revenue is in the vicinity of $50 billion. So many companies have higher revenues than this it isn't even funny. Do you want them all to shutter their businesses?
Even if you make the grossly oversimplifying calculation of $50 billion divided by (roughly) 200 countries in the world -- that comes to $250 million per country. On most country's balance sheet, that number is noise. And for the most part, that is actually only divided among developed/developing countries -- Somalia/Zimbabwe/Uganda are hardly spending 100s of millions of dollars on software..
This anti-MS trolling on /. is getting seriously pathetic. You would think MS is peddling arms to the third world, mining conflict diamonds, or exploiting natural resources in the Amazon or in Africa or something. If you really cared one iota about society having "money left over to spend on fixing disease, starvation, etc." you'd first educate yourself on the issues that cause it. Until then, let me disabuse you of one notion -- children in poor African countries are not starving to death because their parents (or even governments) used up all their money on software.
Microsoft probably wouldn't make much money doing exactly what they do but with open source also. Thats the point. Software development shouldn't focus around selling the same product over and over again, but should instead focus on selling services. Services include developing new features. Possibly, using a Ransomware scenario with source included, and then relicense it to a redistributable open source license after a certain minimum amount revenue was collected. Also, there is a fully functional desktop (several even) available right now. The free software ecosystem is very healthy.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Consider this, actually: the pharma corporations have _already_ developed and patented _cures_ for a lot of diseases. Roll the time back a century or two, and stuff like tuberculosis or cholera or pneumonia or typhus killed people by the dozen. We now have antibiotics against those. Bacterial infections used to be the number one reason to die after surgery. Now they stuff you full of antibiotics instead.
Get this: the bulk of the wealth of those pharma corps is built on selling _cures_.
What people don't get is that there's more than one kind of disease.
- bacteria: we're quite good at killing those, because they're different from your own cells. E.g., the whole beta-lactam (penicilin) group works because bacteria have some different proteins than you do in the cell wall, and the beta-lactam ring can cause the whole cell wall to collapse. E.g., Streptomycin and the like attack the bacterial ribosome, which luckily enough is different from the human one, so things can exist that react with one but not the other.
At any rate, that's antibiotics. And basically that's the only thing we're really good at curing: bacterial infections.
- viruses. These slightly modify your own cells to produce more viruses. But otherwise it's the same f-ing cell, the same ribosome, and the same proteins in the cell walls.
The best luck we've had with these is vaccines. We pre-train your own immune system to deal with certain viruses. But that's not as much a medicine, as some dead viruses for it to play with. Downside: for some viruses it doesn't seem to work. Others mutate so fast that it's hit and miss, e.g., flu.
We have some anti-virals, which are very different from anti-biotics. They tend to be very limited in effectiveness, and very toxic to your own body. Which is what's prescribed for HIV. (Hence, any antibiotics you get for a flu are pure placebo, btw. Nobody prescribes antivirals for a flu, unless it's something deadly like the bird flu, because the cure tends to be worse than a normal flu.)
But, at any rate, we're still pretty bad at curing viruses.
- cancer. This one is even weirder, because it _is_ your normal cells, with some safety mechanisms broken. Essentially for a cell to become cancerous:
A) the proteins regulating divisions must break. (Human papillomavirus does this by adding the code to a broken protein to your cells, so hopefully it binds with the DNA instead of the real thing.) But even that then hits the maximum division counter and stops. That's why warts don't kill you. So
B) the cell must start regenerating its telomeres, i.e., reset the maximum division counter. That sounds like doing something extra, but remember that every cell has the DNA for all other cells, it's just inhibited or not expressed. The body already has the code to reset the telomeres of, say, sperm. (So your kids start with a full counter, and not with your remaining life expectancy.) A broken cell can start doing the same by mistake.
When you get both in the same cell, it's cancer.
At any rate, these _are_ your normal cells, with as little as some wrong aminoacid in a protein or two. Even your own immune system has trouble recognizing a lot of them, and since they still mostly work like the rest of the body, they can even send the right signals to get more blood vessels to support their growth and other fun stuff.
And btw, there are a lot of types of cancer, depending on exactly what was broken and in what type of cell. So one cure-all medicine is highly unlikely.
Nobody knows how to treat the vast majority of these, because there isn't some vital _and_ different protein you can attack, like we do for bacteria. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy actually break the DNA of all cells, and hope that it kills more cancerous cells than good ones. Because (I) cells currently dividing are more vulnerable than cells who have their DNA nicely spooled, and (II) cancerous cells often have broken DNA-repair proteins, so some breaks would be repaired by a normal cell, but
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Two parts to all this. I was a real open-source/GNU advocate back in the day (now the GNU part's been taken off -- I've grown up a little).
Stallman and Gates are both more complex characters than the standard /. fare allows:
1. Stallman's a jackass. I've heard him speak, this really gets its way through. Yes, he's a good hacker, but he tried to be some faux-Nelson Mandela figure atop of it. His combination of arrogance and political ignorance puts together a terrible little combination. He's a hippy doing what so many hippies did -- use the same fascist methods that his opponents used, only for a slightly different goal.
Look, Stallman, thanks for emacs, really. I use it to this day. But your idea of open source is *not* the one that took off. Get over it. Your idea of open source is ridiculous and nonsensical. Unlike you, some of us want to drive a decent car, have attractive significant others, and raise some kids. That requires, *gasp*! income! The thing is, you never understood capitalism. It's a double-edged sword that was too complex for you to understand. The vendor lock in, the obsolescence, the FUD, are all real concerns people have when using software. The actual money is rarely an issue (outside of MS pricing, covered below), the software usually saves people money. Vendors who provide source code, support, and adhere to standards do quite well in the industry.
2. Gates is also a jackass, but not the devil. Microsoft never learned how to write big software themselves. Just like the RMS & Linus's world, they need someone else to do all the heavy lifting (e.g. Bell Labs & Unix for Linus, Apple for MS), and then they can come in and copy.
Complaining about Gates's foreign aid is absurd. Sure, it's not a great system, it forces people to live off the handoffs of others, whatever. The real question is, is that why Gates is doing it? No, it's not. He's not getting anything back for it. He's not politically sophisticated, and this is the best idea so far on the topic.
Gates also has the right to take credit for making the PC world what it is today. Up through DOS, I liked the work MS put out. The software was small and simple, and they sold it at a good price. That was when they didn't need to pull giant bloodsucking bundling maneuvers to literally force customers to buy their shittier software (e.g. windows and all of office at once, instead of a la carte). Their software was fine when it was small and could be done by a few people. When it got larger, they couldn't compete, so they had to find ways to fix the game. In my book, that was Windows and beyond -- shitty software, racketeering tactics for selling it.
If y'all want heroes in this new world, check out the author list on some RFCs, or your favorite app. The names you never hear from eWeek or /., but the folks who get real stuff done. The nice thing is, they're actually pretty intelligent, friendly, accessible people. The way a proper hero should be.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Can you honestly tell me that would've happened if the market had remained fractured into three dozen different *nix fiefdoms?
Yeah, all the improvements you name are due to the industry's standardization on the x86 architecture, something that Microsoft took advantage of but didn't cause in any way. So, in that respect it would've been the exact same thing, though perhaps you would've gotten it for $50-100 less but with FreeBSD instead.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Microsoft does have an important place in computing history but it isn't the hardware game. Microsoft's best and arguably worst contribution to history was Windows as a programming platform on the PC. If not for Windows, software would still be very hardware specific. Both Apple and IBM wanted to lock consumers into using their hardware.(Apple is still doing it) But Microsoft came along and provided non-Big Blue PC compatible hardware vendors a basic API to write to. And since without any specific hardware ties, it was easier to get behind Windows than OS/2, or MacOS. Microsoft's good legacy is the popularization of common APIs for GUIs for the common man. X was around but tied to Unix which was still thought of as server only OS. Some of you weren't around during the pre-Windows days. It wasn't fun. I was around for the transition. I remember software coming with hardware drivers designed to make the hardware work in a reasonably consistant way.