Slashdot Mirror
What Happened To Obama's Open Source Adviser?
gov_coder writes "Back in January of 2009, various news articles announced that former Sun CEO Scott McNealy was to become the Obama administration's Open Source Technology adviser. Currently, however, a search for Scott on the whitehouse.gov website yields zero results. Searching a bit more, I found that Scott is currently working on CurriWiki, a kind of Wikipedia for school curriculum. So my question is, what happened? Did some lobbyist block the appointment? Did Scott decide his other activities were more important? Scott, if you are out there — please tell us what happened. There are many people working in government IT, such as myself, who were really excited about the possibilities of an expanded role for open source software in government, and are now wondering what went wrong."
What Happened To Obama's Open Source Adviser?
He was invited to One Microsoft Way in Redmond, WA and while there discussing standards had a very unfortunate ... shall we say ... "accident?" Which left his voice sounding very metallic and his movements very jerky and unnatural. It was shortly after this that he stood up at the next White House IT meeting and declared, "Whitehouse.gov should be running on Silverlight and Silverlight only let's set so double the killer delete select all blue blue blue blue blue blue ... " At which point the administration decided that it just wasn't working out and removed the position quietly altogether and unexisted Mr. McNealy (or what was left of him anyway).
My work here is dung.
...with a small shell script.
Who wants to know?
The same goes for: Gates, Jobs, Ellison, and every other Silicon Valley entrepreneur.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Just a guess, but typically that's how things roll in politics...
A lobbyist cannot block an appointment...
It was a "figure of speech", not a literal suggestion.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Just because a lobbyist has no legal authority doesn't mean they're powerless or without influence.
Did you learn everything about politics and government from Schoolhouse Rock?
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
He's still got a page at Sourceforge, but he hasn't been updated in months and his developer stopped answering emails.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I would not be surprised if McNealy's appointment is stuck in confirmation hell. He probably requires confirmation by the Senate (see Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution). The Obama administration has been very slow in getting their people confirmed, in part because of the concentration on the Supreme Court vacancies, in part because of Republican intransigence (continuing the Democratic intransigence during the Bush administration, which harks back to the conflicts with Clinton, and back and forth it goes ...).
Fantastic! The Open Source model make even more sense for education than it does for software. I'd like to urge all you nerds out there contribute content to this site -- Java Apps, coding tutorials, etc. In a few years, School Districts should be able to "Just Say No" to expensive textbooks!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Lobbyists block appointments like unions pass legislation.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Am I the only one here who never really bought-in to Sun's latter-day 'open' evangelism?
To me Sun's 'open' efforts always seemed to me to fall into one of the following categories:
1. "Fsuk M$!" - e.g. Open Office
2. Forced to do it by their own guys - e.g. Java
3. Desperate attempt to stay alive/relevant (too late) - e.g. 'open' Solaris, (a bit of a FOSS joke, since most of the work was done by Sun employees)
I'll admit that I'm not fan of Scott McNealy, who - in my opinion - failed to navigate the dotcom bust, and subsequent massive fall in hardware revenues, and then presided over the gradual, sad demise of a formerly pretty good company.
Putting aside my bias, I'll still advance that there are plenty of other people better qualified to be a FOSS tzar.
Your nominations?
It's even more obvious than you think. He's open-sourced the advisory position so anyone can fill the position and make changes.
Did you learn everything about politics and government from Schoolhouse Rock?
Well...... yes.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Gates applauds Indian rich guy for sharing wealth: 4.2010 - saying that the norm in the US is 20% and that US benefactors need to give more along the lines of 40% ~ 50% while not mentioning that he & Melinda give along the lines of 1% ~ 2%.
Please provide a reference for your claim.
According to Businessweek, Bill Gates has given $28 billion out of a net worth of $59 billion, placing him second on the list after Warren Buffett. That appears to be considerably higher than 1-2%.
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
Did you learn everything about politics and government from Schoolhouse Rock?
Actually, I think that was the Simpsons.
Lobbyists have no power when the electorate is well informed and active. WE are failing and causing these problems by allowing these lobbyists to have influence. The only way a lobbyist can have influence is if the gain from more money to a campaign offsets the number of people who leave because a politician was bought off and voted against his constituents interest. Please keep money in government especially when it helps the candidates I like. If a politician votes against my interests I refuse to vote for him. No amount of fancy campaign ads will ever change that. However there are more people who will vote for a candidate just because of a fancy and expensive ad. These people offset me and many other voters who vote not for nicest campaign ad but voting record and their ability to represent us. This is the fundamental problem with our country. Believing anything else is delusional and seeking a simple short term solution, the voters are the problem, until they take their civic duty seriously by ignoring nice haircuts and expensive ads and voting for actual substance we will not have a government that represents us.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."
didn't help.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
According to this article, he was merely asked to write a paper. That hardly sounds like it was a full-time position as an advisor to the administration.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Maybe there is a option not listed - Obama lied in order to help him get votes.
I know it's shocking that a career politician that rapidly rose through the ranks of Chicago in one of the the most corrupt districts there would somehow not be totally truthful. After all he talks nice and chanted "Yes we can" over and over and over. I'm certain, absolutely certain, that if you could just get a message through to him he would realize the enormous accident that occurred and go have a nice long talk with his advisers and other appointees (whom he had *no* idea were doing all these bad things) and fix everything right up.
Really, even if you think everything he has done so far is peachy keen and figure the guy is mostly honest - he is still a politician. At best I would say an open source advisory is so down the priority list that it will likely never happen. Lets face it - he promised to nix the "do not ask do not tell" policy regarding gays in the military, that one simply takes him to write out an official statement and it has been over a year (and promised more than once, basically every time that segments polling numbers really start dropping) and still not done.
In his own auto-biography he points out that people will necessarily be disappointed in him as he presents himself as a blank slate and allows people to write whatever they want on it. He isn't a blank slate - the Obama you are looking for only existed in your mind, not in reality. He never went anyway as he didn't exist. Man many many others are slowly coming to realize this, sadly Obama the idealist (whichever one you wanted to see) doesn't really exist, Obama the politician is the only one that does. He will continue to milk the blank slate and hope that the person you once saw will "return" for as long as he can too - that is the nature of a politician. Some groups have learned how to manipulate a politician and treat him as such (assuming they have enough money and or votes), others sit around confused.
But if it makes you feel better - I'll leave this one generic as it is currently the answer given for all of them: Obama has WAY too much to worry with on his plate. What with all these global crises, economic downtime, and the seditious Tea Partiers blocking real reform it is no wonder he hasn't got to yet. Since he inherited such a mess it will most likely take longer than his Presidency to fix it and get on with the real work that America needs and address your issue.
And as long as that boiler plate works with his core group he will run with it too.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Who would have modded that recursive?
Who would have modded that recursive?
Who would have modded that recursive?
Who would have modded that recursive?
Who would have modded that recursive?
Who would have modded that recursive?
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Lobbyists aren't always bad, they don't always achieve their goals by unscrupulous means, and they don't always represent corporate interests with tons of money to throw around.
Lobbyists are an exceptionally effective means for people to communicate with their elected representatives, being a sort of representative themselves. They can provide a clear voice for large groups of similarly minded people, who would otherwise be lost in the noise.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
They arent the sole sponsor, but generously provided a meeting room every month. Several of their employees attend these meetings. I dont recall any of them giving a presentation there. But I havent been attending very long.
Bill and Melinda Gates
(2003-07 GIVEN OR PLEDGED (MILLIONS)) - 3,519
(ESTIMATED LIFETIME GIVING* (MILLIONS)) - 28,144
Net Worth 59 Billion
Percentage 48%
What is the "Estimated Lifetime giving" ? All the other Philanthropists have a much smaller difference between estimated and given. The article says that the estimated is "*Based on public records and interviews with donors"
So what I get from this is that there is a record of 3.5 billion given but when asked in a interview Bill said he has given away 28 billion. Yeah, sure Billy, and I gave 2 trillion to orphans last year.
Also is that money from them personally or money they have raised thru the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation?
I hate to be petty but it bugs me when a rich guy gets a bunch of kudos for giving away money that he could not possibly spend in his lifetime yet poor slobs who proportionally give a lot more aren't even recognized.
Actually, the one news article linked from the text "various news articles" in the summary, as well as every other web source I can find, indicates McNealy was asked to write one position paper on the use of open source software by the administration, and that was apparently presented to the Administration shortly after the request was made (this article from late February discusses some actions that occurred after the paper was presented.)
The issue was never about McNealy being hired as for the position of "Open Source Adviser", it was about McNealy providing one-time advice on the use of open source software.
the guy who tries to do good and sometimes fails... or the guy who tries to do bad and often succeeds?
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
http://www.google.com/search?q=recursion Check out the "Did you mean:" option.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
+1, the EFF is a lobby.
I'm an amendment to be
Yes, an amendment to be
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me
There's a lot of flag burners
Who have got too much freedom
I wanna make it legal
For policemen
To beat 'em
'Cause there's limits to our liberties
'Least I hope and pray that there are
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Strangely, clicking on the "Did you mean:" option returns a different list (or order) than the first query. Or, at least, it did for me on the first (uncached) attempt.
You've got your facts wrong. Scott McNealy was never slated to become the Obama administration's Open Source Technology adviser. According to the articles you referenced, all he was going to do was write a paper:
Scott McNealy "revealed he has been asked to prepare a paper on the subject (open source technologies and products) for the new administration."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7841486.stm
"According to BBC News, the Obama administration has asked Sun chairman McNealy for a position statement justifying the administration's use of open source software. The BBC wasn't clear on who specifically asked him, but McNealy's spokesperson, on a query by the Linux community, acknowledged that McNealy had been meeting over the last year with members of the administration's new technology initiative, which apparently led to this request."
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Sun-s-McNealy-Advises-Obama-Administration-on-Open-Source
I don't know if Scott ever got around to writing that paper. Searching the White House website for papers on Open Source, the only one I found was here:
Open Source Software and Cyber Defense
A White Paper provided to the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council as input to the White House Review of Communications and Information Infrastructure.
Bob Gourley, Chief Technology Officer, Crucial Point LLC
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/cyber/Gourley_Bob_Open_Source_Software_and_Cyber_Defense_01_April_2009.pdf
To drag this off-topic - Gore may have helped the internet to win.
It diddn't have to.
If prodigy/compuserve/AOL - and the giants of yore - had gotten mail between them working without the use of the internet, a large driver of the internet dies.
At one point, the internet, and other corporate networks that were poorly connected to each other - were growing rapidly.
These networks did not always run tcp/ip - for example AOL.
Gore helped (in some degree) get the legislation that encouraged the internet to grow a bit faster at that crucial period.
If it hadn't grown as fast, we might have ended up with something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel - driven by a conglomerate formed by a merger of several of the large ISPs.
Oh - and maybe the internet may be kicking around as a research project still, or in use in academia.
Fundamentally - if you manage to get users locked into a platform that serves them - getting tehm to switch, and break all their applications is hard.
'Invented the internet' - clearly not.
'Had a vital role in making the internet win' - maybe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(United_States_Senate)
Just glance at the graph on that page. You are delusional if you think Democrats have EVER done anything like this to Republicans. Democrats have NEVER used filibuster the way Republicans are using it now. Hell, Republicans have never used it like this. No one has, ever. Republicans have been beating their own records for obstructionism since Obama was elected. No one has ever used rhetoric so violent and divisive. When Republicans use such rhetoric as 'treasonous' and 'communist', they are then beholden to fight such evil with no mercy and no compromise, or admit that their rhetoric was false and misleading. At this point, any compromise would undermine the message they have been drilling into their base: Obama is an evil communist Muslim fascist dictator who is worse than Hitler multiplied by Pol Pot and raised to the power of Stalin. You can't compromise with that. You can't practice bipartisanship with that. You can only fight it with every weapon in your arsenal.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Until Open Source(TM) starts making major campaign contributions, this is how it's going to be.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Whatever happened to "Dissent is patriotic"?
That is a good point. It was not till recently I realized how much influence clerks have in the supreme court. For example, when a petition for cert comes in, the justices do not look them over, the clerks / paralegals do and the ones of interest to them get shown to the justices and if four can be convinced then cert is granted. Sure it is not always that simple, but nothing is.
There is a good reason why there was meant to be a representative for every 30,000 people. I realize that is over 11,500 representatives today if we still followed the original constitution, but look at the staff of the average representative. How many representatives do you think have over 27 staff members? Why can't we just elect all of them? Make the districts smaller and maybe I won't be waiting around with nearly 2 million other people waiting to be heard by MY representative.
Lobbyists aside, only 3% of congress is elected... hmmm... basically leaving the Federal government completely unregulated, unaccountable, and hidden from public watch. Hell, there is a good argument there that lobbyists are far better regulated than our congress.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
... I read "shill script".
Time for coffee.