How Open Source Might Finally Become Mainstream

geegel writes "The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting article on how autocracies are now embracing open source, while at the same promoting national based IT services. The author, Evgeny Morozov, paints a bleak future of the future World Wide Web."

Comments

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I've also noticed that at the same we're getting much better quality open source software.

Re:Interesting

[clang_jangle]

And back doors in proprietary software. Of course countries like Russia and Iran don't want to use software that has the NSA spy stuff built-in. Neither do I!

Re:Interesting

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Have you ever looked at average open-source code ? While the kernel's code quality might be called "passable" (though it could adhere to stricter standards), the same cannot be said for most open source projects. It would not be hard, at all, to hide a backdoor in one of a dozen projects, especially GNOME and KDE are utter disasters when it comes to some of the code they run. For projects that are tested, a steady stream of exploits is available, from mozilla, the kernel, apache, tomcat, and gnome and kde (but these last 2 are barely tested at all, yet still quite a few exploits are found on a regular basis).

In commercial projects the NSA needs to infiltrate the company (I doubt anyone just lets this happen, and it would be better if they didn't for the NSA, no-one knows, that means no-one can betray you), and then commit something into it. Before outsourcing it was probably hard for the Chinese government to get backdoors into American software (though there have been incidents with japanese military vessels software suddenly refusing to target things when some Chinese boats were nearby and not behaving all that well). Today, there's little doubt the Chinese government has backdoors in many open and close source software projects.

So this is just a bogus argument. Let's get real : both commercial and open source projects are bugged and contain planted exploits. Both contain backdoors for multiple governments. Besides, software is vulnerable even without planted backdoors. The one attack that was probably government originated (though despite all sorts of predictions still no firm proof exactly which government did it, and since nobody likes Iran's govt, not even Iran's own scientists (ahmadinnerjacket had a few hundred of a run-ins with ... well everybody ... at pretty much every iranian university before becoming "there's no gays in Iran" laughing stock of the world), needless to say, the very people who would obviously be in the best possible position to pull this off)), Stuxnet, didn't need any unpublished holes. Not in the used closed-source software, not in the used open source software, not in the used hardware, not ... It was so basic a commercial company could probably have written it, yet it was capable of introducing sabotage actions in what is arguably Iran's best guarded facility, it's nuclear weapons factory.

Could an equally basic process be used to subtly sabotage an American weapons production plant ? Good question.

Then there's the fact that the Chinese have been caught bugging hardware for espionage. What exactly do you hope to do about that ?

And, yes, the US spies. So does every other country on the planet. So would I if I controlled the government of any particular country. Inside and outside of the country. But the purpose of the American govt is to change the world into America. Great plan ! The purpose of the Chinese government is to change the world into China. Frankly I really, really don't like that plan. I hear the public buses are killers. Similar things go for just about any other government (except perhaps - perhaps western Europe - perhaps, maybe if the EU was anywhere near democratic)

Re:Interesting

[HermMunster]

As far as I am concerned--I see open source everywhere, I use it everywhere--it is mainstream.

Re:Interesting

[HermMunster]

Open source code is generally considered tighter and superior than closed source. But alas, how do you know when the source code is closed? What's your point of reference, or are you just using FUD as an astroturfer for one of those close source companies?

Re:Interesting

[HermMunster]

I read the article. It is ridiculous, and on every level.

His underlying premise is that unless you use commercial closed source software you are not a nationalist/patriot and you are opening the gates to allow foreign companies and governments gain such large valuation (I guess because they would be saving money by not buying commercial software thus reducing America's commercial value while at it) that they can use those saved funds to hedge their bets in order to buy American and European companies such as AOL or Skype where they can destroy the privacy of every person and entity using those services.

Seriously, that's what it sounds like to me from just reading through the article. All of this is made possible because open source isn't controlled by commercial entities in cahoots with their governments, and also made possible because of those pale faced pony-tailed geeks coding away in the basement of their parents home so totally unsuspecting of the consequences of their actions.

The guy has no concept of what open source is. He's preaching to the fringe, those with extreme views. What went through my mind was that he was being paid to make these propaganda claims.

He might as well be saying that American companies should stockpile manufacturing and technical skills (in the US) so that when China does take over Africa, Russia, South America, etc., Silicon Valley will have the ability to continue to compete.

I mean seriously. He's saying things about China going into Africa, Russia, Brazil, etc., and how that will affect the technological and competitive nature of Silicon Valley. One has to ask how on earth that ties into open source supporters and what they are trying to accomplish. His whole article is ludicrous.

There's nothing today that indicates that open source software isn't being written by a highly diverse set of developers. He's talking feldercarb.

Re:Interesting

[mellon]

No offense, man, but it looks like you didn't actually read the article—you just skimmed it for something to disagree with. He doesn't say that at all. What he says is that it's likely that national governments, including the U.S. government, will resist purchasing and using software written by companies in other countries. And it's also likely that the U.S. government's attempts to get Silicon Valley companies to put back doors in all their software will feed into this trend.

The bit about open source isn't even the point of the article—it's just the lead-in. He doesn't actually draw any conclusions about open source other than that it may play some role in the balkanization of software on a national level, because it provides a jumping-off point for national versions of software. Frankly, it's a damned good article; the slashdot summary doesn't do it justice.

Re:Interesting

[c6gunner]

Open source code is generally considered tighter and superior than closed source

Oh, ok. In that case, can you tell me why the suckiness it of Gnome is only surpassed by the suckiness of KDE? Today I finally got fed up with my Gnome icons playing musical chairs in the taskbar, and figured I'd apt-get install kubuntu-desktop. Well, in KDE the icons don't fucking around with me, but now whenever I enable any kind of graphical effects, the fucking windows all go apeshit. It's like Shiva on speed connected 6 mice to my computer and is jerking all the windows around so fast that I can only see fragments of them at any one time.

Superior code my ass. The icon issue in Gnome was reported 5 YEARS AGO, and still hasn't been fixed. The KDE bug, I can't even find a mention of it anywhere. But my experience with linux in general is that there is ALWAYS something wrong, and it'll be something different on every system. I'll install it on a new computer, and I'll ooooh and aaaah, and then, a few minutes, or a few days, or a few weeks later, I'll notice some minor issue. And I'll screw with it for days, or weeks, or months, and maybe I'll get it fixed eventually, if I sacrifice enough goats and place the candles at just the right positions in the pentagram. Meanwhile I'll have found 10 other issues that are just as annoying. And the next time I run the update-manager, it'll install something that will destroy my fix, and change the issue just enough so that what I did last time doesn't fix it any more.

Say what you will about Microsoft, but I have NEVER had those kinds of issues with them. Windows either works fine, runs sluggish because someone installed a bunch of crap on it, or fails spectacularly with a blue screen. There's never these weird issues that appear randomly and drive you completely fucking nuts. I'd say the other guy's got it completely right - opensource in general is a fucking mess.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

The funniest troll score 0 comments are those that probably took the poster all morning to write :)

Re:Interesting

[ozmanjusri]

There's never these weird issues [with Windows] that appear randomly and drive you completely fucking nuts.

I'm trying to decide whether you've never used Windows at all, or whether you've used it for so long you're entirely delusional.

Re:Interesting

[hitmark]

There is a third option, payed shill...

Re:Interesting

[mlush]

I concluded open source was mainstream when I saw our new (Panasonic) TV runs on Linux.

Re:Interesting

[HermMunster]

I read through the whole article. You need to read the whole article.

It's amazing you can't see that he's claiming that American capitalism looses due to open source because it permits other countries to spend differently and that lack of spending on US goods inhibits Silicon Valley's to compete. He's saying that by giving foreign countries money (because they aren't spending on US products) they get to spend in other countries such as Africa, Russia, Brazil (all of which he mentions in his article) thus increasing their economic clout and influence.

He beats around the bush a lot in his article and he hides behind a facade, but he clearly saying that using open source is bad for the US economy and that it hurts the ability of Silicon Valley to compete and it gives countries such as Russia and China the opportunity to use open source products in ways that defeat commercial software's ability to turn a profit.

He also clearly indicates that doing so undermines efforts by agencies such as the FBI from obtaining the benefit of back doors being programmed into software, because open source software code can be reviewed.

And there's nothing classic about me. My posts almost never get negative mods. In general, I get positive mods.

Re:Interesting

[HermMunster]

I have no problem in giving you credit by saying that open source software suffers the same fate as commercial software--bugs & software design. I too have had to deal with gnome panels that seem to rearrange my icons. In general though it is unusual for them to change, but once in a while they do.

Your comments about KDE are not proven by me, as I have not experienced those issues, although I have experienced others. Again, I credit it to bugs which are prevalent in commercial software as well as open source.

This though doesn't detract from my statement that open source "code" is, in general, considered tighter and better done than commercial software. Certainly all software has bugs and design flaws. To me though tight well done coding is a different animal than producing bug free software. Part of my comment was written to show how stupid it is to claim that commercial code is better written when no one generally has access to the code to prove it--and at least with open source you can review the code and look at it yourself.

Further I would say that not all software projects are created equal, open source or commercial. Not all project programmers were created equal.

A benefit of open source is that you can look at the code to make a determination. With open source (with you being someone complaining about these problems) you can modify the code yourself.

Complaining about bugs in open source while ignoring the fact that commercial software has bugs as well is a bit selective.

Re:Interesting

[HermMunster]

Wow, so personal.

The last refuge of a coward is the personal attack.

Re:Interesting

[HermMunster]

Though I may not have been clear on some of my points, and I could have written it better I can see that you failed to thoroughly read his and my posts.

Re:Interesting

[AchilleTalon]

I agree with you and your post should have get positive mods. This guy doesn't really understand open source.

Re:Interesting

[FatLittleMonkey]

Did they give you the source? Allow you to modify the code running on the TV itself?

(I'm not a freetard, hell I'm running Windows, but "Uses Linux" is not open source, unless it's open.)

Re:Interesting

[mlush]

Did they give you the source? Allow you to modify the code running on the TV itself?

(I'm not a freetard, hell I'm running Windows, but "Uses Linux" is not open source, unless it's open.)

I guess its available I'll have a look tonight.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Right ... its all their fault. You're coming off as an egotistical tool.

Just sayin'

Re:Interesting

[MindKata]

One important implicit side effect I got from the article is that the influence of governments wishing to exploit open source software will by implication help open source software fight off attempts by closed source companies to undermine open source software.

One big and growing problem the article highlights is that governments are becoming more directly involved in what goes into the software, not least of which backdoors for their own spying. But then the US has brought this to a head due to the FBI asking for backdoors to be put into software, which has freaking out other countries. But it seems all the countries are playing this same game.

I think one of the most interesting aspects of the article is how it highlights how the division between government and business is blurring. This is shown in how money is lent from one country to other countries on the basis they take certain technology from that one country. The governments are playing global games of controlling and influencing other countries, each trying to control resources, such as natural or even technological resources such as communications infrastructure, in the case of China's moves into African countries.

I wonder if the divisions between government and business are really blurring or are we now (thanks to the Internet) now finally starting to see more of the truth, that governments and their businesses are much closer than they would like us to believe and that countries use their businesses as pawns, for their political ambitions to influence other countries. (It would also help explain how governments are voted in by the people yet spend most of the time listening to the wishes of companies (via their lobby groups) and so its businesses and not the people who really influence government. So are we now finally starting to see, in much more detail, what has been really going on for centuries? (Its no wonder the governments want to hide so much from us). I (like a lot of people) have suspected a lot of this duplicitous power games for years, but the Internet is helping us to confirm with more evidence these games are really being played behind our backs by our own governments.

On a positive note, its a fascinating thought provoking article. On a more negative note, its hard not to see the close ties between governments and their businesses as they seek to push backdoors into technology (and use technology as a means of inflence and control) is therefore a pressure that is pushing the world towards an increasingly more Orwellian Authoritarian world, where governments are increasingly trying to watch us all, but as usual we are still prevented from hearing so much about what they do in secret behind our backs. (But then even Wikileaks has been highlighting our government representatives have been repeatedly lying to us and hiding what is really going on (even though with 3 million people with access to that information, all countries are likely to have spies in that many people, so all countries knew what was in the documents, before the leaks. So that means the only people who don't really know is all of us!, the public, who are the only people really kept in the dark!). So this article adds more jigsaw pieces to help us see the global chess moves being played by governments, as they seek to manoeuvre their businesses into influential positions whilst also seeking to prevent other countries businesses from gaining influential and potentially damaging positions in their own countries.

As the old saying goes, "Oh what a twisted web we weave". So much for just make a great product and selling it. All the politics is really an irritating distraction, even without adding in all the growing Authoritarian shit that’s inevitable given their relentless behaviour, as they seem determined to try to find ways to spy and block spying on each other, with all of us caught in the middle and likely to end up spied on relentlessly.

Anyway a very thought provoking article. Now where's the brandy bottle, I need a drink!. :)

Re:Interesting

[mellon]

He's claiming that American software companies that depend on closed source are in a no-win situation, and yes, open source will play into that, but that's not the point of the article.

I think it's pretty intellectually crippling if you can't reason about open source's effects on the markets in cases where the effects are not experienced by all players as positive. Allowing oneself to consider these effects does not make one an opponent of open source. It makes one a realist.

Re:Interesting

[mellon]

You probably use open source software I wrote...

Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[MarkvW]

Free as in Beer
and
Free as in Free to Oppress!

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[Surt]

It's sadly true. The technology for implementing fascism is getting better every day, and the US is sadly headed very rapidly in that direction.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

So Obama's implementing fascism then ? Because that's kinda what you're saying.

I doubt it : He's not that much of a lefty.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[dreamchaser]

Let's see...buying a controlling interest in GM...check...attempting to take over health care...check...proposals for universal Government provided ID's for Internet use...check.

He's quite lefty enough, and he's taken great strides towards that end.

It's ironic how China and US are both moving towards becoming corporate fascist states from opposite directions.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[nospam007]

"Let's see...buying a controlling interest in GM...check...attempting to take over health care...check...proposals for universal Government provided ID's for Internet use...check."

Wow, you're turning into France!

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[simoncpu was here]

Fascism is the best solution for fixing the economy. Too bad humans can be corrupted so easily. To properly implement fascism, we need AI.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[Rennt]

The political spectrum traditionally has fascism on the right and socialism on the left. You seem to have this backwards.

But if your point was that Obama is pretty centrist, I'd agree.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[M1FCJ]

Does this mean finally American Cheese will taste like something?
Or their bread finally will be tasty?
All I can see coming out of America is freedom fries and McBurgers.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Fascism implies central control of the economy as the basis for all of the economy, combined with massive government intervention. Fascism taxed profits 100%, which made any and all private entities directly depended on government for every decision. What did the nazi government do with this money ? Well, fascism pioneered a lot of things in Western Europe, pensions, general study sponsorhips, national healthcare, massive government-sponsored "private" projects under direct government control (note that for example the design of a new car -Volkswagen something, I'd have to look up the exact model- was a project of the nazi government, but most weapons design was done like this).

How the hell is that compatible with the rightist side of the spectrum ? You have to admit - not exactly what the tea party would like to see in government, right ? All those policies are more the democrats cup of tea, no ?

Fascism is a slightly more modern form of communism. Just like most of today's leftist organizations don't advocate eradicating the private sector, just imposing huge taxes and then having the government do things with that money. The idea of fascism is simply to drive that to the extreme : one tax, 100% profit tax, every R&D project, expansion, ... therefore has to go through the government as it needs sponsorship.

This has been a standard political tactic for thousands of years. If "real" communism can't make it through, can't be imposed on a state, then invent something that's basically equivalent and create a few "fights" between the "new" and the "old" communism, then claim how they are opposites somehow (all the while in reality helping eachother out : Hitler and Stalin were allies long before he took power, and he received ... let's say "physical" help from the KGB with his election. In public, of course, Hitler and Stalin were enemies). Julius Caesar did the same thing : see military dictatorship (his, with his generals) is SO much better than ... military dictatorship (of three military leaders) ... isn't it ? Hundreds of thousands roman citizens believed this.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[Darfeld]

Nazism stand for National Socialism.

Fascism seems to be mostly a far right thing, but can occasionally be on the left of the political spectrum... The original Italian fascism promoted a corporatist economy. And it's not "a modern form" of communism, as it is far from modern and has nothing to do with "communism or not". It just happened that you can have both fascism and communism at the same time. If you're confused by the distinction, please don't write bullshit.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[Kjella]

Hitler and Stalin were allies long before he took power, and he received ... let's say "physical" help from the KGB with his election. In public, of course, Hitler and Stalin were enemies

What a load of bullshit. Hitler and his nationalism opposed pretty much everything the Soviet tried to do to start a global communist revolution. And you are claiming Hitler was helped by an organization that was started in 1954. The rest of your post is also full of provable lies - especially to what existed before fascism and what they invented, pure rambling - did you mean to say the Volkswagen was a weapon design? - and the 100% tax rate shows you've never opened a history book, only taking things you think you know to fit your theory. Here's a few quotes, granted WP is not the best of sources but well:

Specifically, during the first four years of the new regime, from 1922 to 1925, the Fascists had a generally laissez-faire economic policy under the Finance Minister Alberto De Stefani. Free competition was encouraged. De Stefani initially reduced taxes, regulations and trade restrictions on the whole.

In June 1933, the Reinhardt Program was introduced. It was an extensive infrastructure development project that combined indirect incentives, such as tax reductions, with direct public investment in waterways, railroads and highways.

Within a few years of Hitler's accession, "middle-class socialism" had been defeated, collective bargaining had been banned and unions had been outlawed. Large companies were favored over small businesses.

Oh yeah, anti-unions. That is sooooo left-wing policy. Of course both Fascism and Communism was against the free enterprise, but you ignore massive differences. Fascism was more like a modern corporate serfdom, workers were for the industry to use, and the industry was for the state to use. Those who were industry leaders before fascism continued to be industry leaders under fascism and made massive profits. It is true they made massive government pushes in science, technology, infrastructure and industry - not unlike the Apollo decade in the US, I think. But it has a lot more in common with modern communist China than old communist Soviet.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[tehcyder]

The political spectrum traditionally has fascism on the right and socialism on the left. You seem to have this backwards.

Right-wingers (who are understandably ashamed of being labelled right-wing) try this trick all the time. My favourite argument they come up with time after time is that Nazi=National Socialist Whatever in German, therefore all socialists are fascists, therefore as they hate socialists they can't be fascists..

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[marcosdumay]

There is a famous citation about the worst kind of dictatorship being the one honestly done to the good of the people. I don't remember it exactly.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[Magada]

The technology for implementing fascism was available to Mussolini, many decades ago. What is your point?

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[FatLittleMonkey]

attempting to take over health care...check...

As an exercise, just to prove to yourself that you are correct and not stupid, try to find a Western nation with health care that is less "Socialist/Fascist" than the US under ObamaCare.

Just one.

Hey, it's not a waste, you'll have an example of a superior system to point to in future posts. "Why can't we have a system like [insert country], look how much better it is than stupid ObamaCare!"

Just one. I'll wait.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 1930s, Mussolini couldn't implement fascism on his own. He had to rely on the failure of democratically elected politicians. The same can be said for Hitler: his entrance was made possible only by the failure of the Weimar republic.

In todays age, Fox can. No matter your opinion of Obama, in comparison to the politicians of the 1930s he's doing quite well. Mussolini wouldn't have had a chance against him. Yet, despite this, there is a sizeable fraction of Americans that has become convinced Obama is Evil Incarnated. What was needed is a careful mix of communication technology, sociology and hate. Only the last is unchanged; the other two have changed quite a lot in 80 years.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[Surt]

I don't think there's any evidence for that. Central planning should lose to decentralized planning any time information isn't fully centralized, which is always.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[Surt]

Really, he had affordable remote cameras that could be installed in every home and business, and computers to analyze all the speech and bring troublesome ones to the attention of authorities?

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[Surt]

Sorry, I guess maybe what was unclear in my post was that I meant implementing it successfully, which means forever.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[Magada]

It was a bit unclear, yes. In fact, it remained unstated.

I would like to point out at this point in our conversation that forever does not exist. Even the Roman empire eventually split, then fell altogether.

If you're looking for low-tech fascist regimes that lasted a very long time, look no further: Franco.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[Magada]

It's quite difficult for most people to be so covertly subversive that such invasive techniques are needed to uncover them.

Oppressive governments need rely on nothing higher-tech than spies and delators. It is emphatically necessary to spy on everyone, but it's not at all necessary for the actual coverage to be perfect.

As long as the borders are secure, there is nowhere to hide for dissidents, it's just a matter of time. Their friends may betray them under torture. Their landlady might turn them in, hoping to "inherit" a desk-lamp or a fur coat.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Oh yeah, anti-unions. That is sooooo left-wing policy. Of course both Fascism and Communism was against the free enterprise, but you ignore massive differences. Fascism was more like a modern corporate serfdom, workers were for the industry to use, and the industry was for the state to use. Those who were industry leaders before fascism continued to be industry leaders under fascism and made massive profits. It is true they made massive government pushes in science, technology, infrastructure and industry - not unlike the Apollo decade in the US, I think. But it has a lot more in common with modern communist China than old communist Soviet.

This is exactly leftist policy. Unions are, for the left, a path to power, nothing more. Like all "paths to power" once you are in power, they're a threat, not an asset.

Central control, the most central tenet of socialism, means exclusive state control, within a single organization ("the party"). Unions are the muscle to use against the non-leftist state when they're not in power. Once lefties are in power, anything that *might* oppose the power of the state obviously has to go. So every leftist dictator, every last one, from the proto communist states, the soviets, the nazis, right down to Mugabe turned on unions. Sometimes (like in the soviets) they kept existing, with party dictators as their sole management, becoming empty shells.

So yes, destroying unions is leftist policy. Just not when they're not (yet) in the position to force themselves on everyone else through police and army.

Re:Stallman Would Be So Proud!

[dreamchaser]

Why should I even bother replying to a straw man arguement? Had I been comparing systems then your question would be valid. I was not. I was talking about the US, not any other countries.

As for health care, my system is just fine for me because I actually work for a living and can have a great insurance plan plus money to pay for anything it might not cover. I'd rather not be beholden to any government for such needs. It's not their job to take care of me.

In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, big corporations work for government!

Wait, that's not a joke...

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Kjella]

xIn Capitalist America, government works for big business.

Wait, that's still not a joke.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Galestar]

In Soviet Russia, source opens YOU!

Re:In Soviet Russia

[endymion.nz]

They are both jokes, but unfortunately they are also true.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

I know! It's shocking how business people also get representation in government. Aren't they aware that their place in life is to work to supply the rest of us with the lifestyle we're entitled to?

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

I know! It's shocking how business people also get representation in government. Aren't they aware that their place in life is to work to supply the rest of us with the lifestyle we're entitled to?

I don't recall anyone claiming we have a government "of the shareholders, by the shareholders, for the shareholders," do you?

Re:In Soviet Russia

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

How about we just say that in both countries big corporations and the government are ... 2 names for the exact same group of people ?

Re:In Soviet Russia

[NotQuiteReal]

Not JUST big business.

Ironically, Government works for Big Labor too!

Re:In Soviet Russia

[CycleMan]

Came for this, leaving satisfied.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, are shareholders not people now? And have we revoked the right of people to associate as they see fit, which implies the right to form corporations to pursue common business interests?

Damn, I must've missed that memo! Thanks for letting us know.

Oh, and by the way - the line about government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" isn't in a government document, fuckstain. It's from the Gettysburg Address, by Abraham Lincoln - a speech, which - while certainly well-written - doesn't quite have the weight and binding authority of law.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[mikael_j]

Wait, are shareholders not people now?

Sure they are but legally they are only entitled to one vote per person, not ten thousand times the political influence of the average voter by virtue of being a major shareholder in a corporation that "owns" a bunch of politicians.

And have we revoked the right of people to associate as they see fit, which implies the right to form corporations to pursue common business interests?

Well, you are free to hang out with anyone you want to but maybe it's time to return the corporation to its roots, when the purpose of a corporation wasn't "maximize profit for the shareholders regardless of legal or ethical implications" but rather to provide a product or service that would be beneficial to the community.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

...maybe it's time to return the corporation to its roots...
The roots of Corporation as a legal entity have nothing to do with benificence to the community, and everything to do with maximizing shareholder profit while minimizing shareholder risk.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[cowboy76Spain]

Well, you are free to hang out with anyone you want to but maybe it's time to return the corporation to its roots, when the purpose of a corporation wasn't "maximize profit for the shareholders regardless of legal or ethical implications" but rather to provide a product or service that would be beneficial to the community.

uh? The purpose of a corporation (unless it explicitly stated another one) has always been to "maximize profits". In fact they were setup because at some time, it was found that the capital needed to profit the most from economies of scale was more than any single individual was willing to risk.

I am not particularly fond of capitalism, but I'm ok with the "maximize profit for the shareholders". What I ask for is:

• If YOU break the law working for the corporation, YOU pay the bill/serve the time. Even if you are the CEO, the fines and lawyer expenses are not going to be paid by the shareholders (who, in the whole part, do not know what is happening).
• If the chain of command imposes rules/objectives that cannot be reallistically meet (like driving from coast to coast of the USA with the due rest and without breaking speed limits in 24 hours), then they are held liable, TOO.
• Additionally, but less related to the issue, other controls to avoid board members and big shareholders to profit from small shareholders (company owned stock does not count in votings, heavy control in board salaries and bonuses, and other..)

That won't stop social differences, but it might be a mean to avoid making them bigger every year...

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Dr_Barnowl]

Corporations originally received a corporate charter that stated their purpose in limited terms ; like the "West Bumhump Bridge Corporation". Once that purpose was fulfilled, the corporation was dissolved.

They weren't the amoral, immortal monsters we have today. They had a purpose beyond maximising shareholder value. And most importantly, they did not have the rights of a person, without the responsibilities.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[bogjobber]

Well, you are free to hang out with anyone you want to but maybe it's time to return the corporation to its roots, when the purpose of a corporation wasn't "maximize profit for the shareholders regardless of legal or ethical implications" but rather to provide a product or service that would be beneficial to the community.

You have a quite rosy view of history if you think this is really true. The first modern corporation was the Dutch East India Company, followed by the other mercantilist companies like the East India Company. None of which were very ethical in the means by which they made a profit.

Then you can look at the 19th and early 20th centuries at the railroad companies, Standard Oil, steel and coal companies breaking strikes and forcing their employees to basically act as indentured servants.

Corporations have always acted unethically in order to maximize profits.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Kjella]

If YOU break the law working for the corporation, YOU pay the bill/serve the time. Even if you are the CEO, the fines and lawyer expenses are not going to be paid by the shareholders (who, in the whole part, do not know what is happening).
If the chain of command imposes rules/objectives that cannot be reallistically meet (like driving from coast to coast of the USA with the due rest and without breaking speed limits in 24 hours), then they are held liable, TOO.

While there's planty of corporate scape goats to go around, I'd see a hell of a legal mess if you tried imposing personal liabilities for normal employees while still having loyality to the company. Is it the salesman, the project leader, the team members, the project owner - I mean you can have his signature on the dotted line, but in my world that's usually just an executive that approves the expense and is barely part of the project at all. The only thing he could do was charge a huge risk premium for doing it, but it wouldn't change anything.

Honestly, as a developer taking a paycheck would you like the possibility that one day they go after you personally for introducing a bug? What about QA and testing? What about the short deadline you were given? You know it won't matter. Plus you'd have lots of doubtful "it wasn't my fault, I called some code and it failed" vs "he used the code in a way I never meant for it to be used" cases. In the end, it's only the corporation that is responsible for the whole product working as advertised and sold.

The second part also suffer from "who is supposed to see this doesn't add up" issues. Like for example you're charged with setting up an overall plan for transporting goods. Now somewhere down the chain of command this doesn't add up, you have a trailer going too far and too long. I assure you the chief strategic planner at Wal-Mart has no clue about the schedule of any single trailer - he only plans how many tons of goods they need to move. If people then simply let themselves get pressured and don't offer feedback, the chain of command won't know what it leads to in reality.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[tehcyder]

I know! It's shocking how business people also get representation in government. Aren't they aware that their place in life is to work to supply the rest of us with the lifestyle we're entitled to?

A business person's vote should be worth the same as an unemployed poet's vote.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[tehcyder]

The purpose of a corporation (unless it explicitly stated another one) has always been to "maximize profits". In fact they were setup because at some time, it was found that the capital needed to profit the most from economies of scale was more than any single individual was willing to risk.

Not wanting to nitpick, but in fact the idea of a limited liability company (as they are called in the UK) was primarily to minimise the risk to investors. If you invest GBP100 in shares in X Ltd, the most you will be out of pocket is GBP 100 if it goes completely bust. I.e. you won't be sued by creditors and have to sell your house.

Thanks for the compliment

[Amorymeltzer]

At the end of 2010, the "open-source" software movement, whose activists tend to be fringe academics and ponytailed computer geeks...

Here are some opening lines from previous Wall Street Journal articles:

- At the end of 2010, the "global financial" traders, who tend to be morally crippled and calloused egomaniacs...
- At the end of 2010, the "journalistic reporting" newspapers, whose employees tend to be hypocritical parasites and star-struck airheads...
- At the end of 2010, the "United States", whose elected representatives tend to be greedy lawyers and ignorant blowhards...

How fun!

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[h4rr4r]

I like how he mentioned computer geeks and academics, but not Google, Red Hat, IBM or hundreds of other examples of open source in mainstream life.

Like most of the WSJ this article is full of FUD and written to agree with their readers pre-conceived notions.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[treeves]

Hmm. You think WSJ articles are written by a bot?
And what's with open-source being in "scare quotes"?

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[lgw]

Neither Google nor IBM are particulary open source activists, tough some of their employees might be. The whole activism part really is entirely a geek thing, much like caring about DRM still is (unfortunately).

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[h4rr4r]

He did not have to mention activists, he could have mentioned users instead. This article is written this way on purpose. It is because it fits the pre-conceived notions of WSJ readers. The WSJ has become just another part of the Murdoch echo chamber.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[Anonymous Coward]

I also like how they seem to be implying that being a 'computer geek' is somehow a negative trait. Who the hell do they think invents the hardware and writes the software they take for granted on a daily basis?

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[h4rr4r]

Mangers and Executives via "Corporate Visions" of course, those other folks just do that trivial crap called actual work.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[HermMunster]

It's utterly ludicrous to make such a bullshit statement about open source supporters. He's just showing how big of an idiot he is.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[HermMunster]

And your citation in support of this is where exactly? What study did you perform? Are you just repeating what you've heard on sites such as digg.com or microsoft's get the facts?

If you really knew you'd know better than to even attempt such fiction here at slashdot.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[HermMunster]

It doesn't matter what he said about activists. He's demonstrating utter incompetence in his article, from beginning to end. Seriously, he's lost when it comes to understanding open source and those that support it. He seems to imply that open source is *only* sold through activists efforts. The opening paragraph shows his incompetent ire. His following thesis shames everyone everywhere.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[w0mprat]

"hypocritical" ? I see what you did there, the opposite of hypercritical. A journalist/writer who is incapable of even the mildest criticism?

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[Americano]

Read the full first sentence: The point is not "Open source activists are all geeks and academics." The point was that the "open source activists" (who *do* tend to be ponytailed geeks and academic types, though I'd disagree with the 'fringe' label) found an unlikely ally: the Russian government.

So why the focus on them? Because as the article goes on to point out, the fact that suddenly Russia (and other states - particularly fairly autocratic ones like Russia, China, and Iran) are coming out as big proponents of open source is interesting. Why is this pairing unlikely? Because the open-source activists who are way-into freedom and openness aren't generally on the same side of the "freedom and openness" issue that a government such as the ones running Iran or Russia would generally be expected to fall on. Contrast this with companies like IBM, RedHat, and Google, who, you know, love to talk endlessly about their commitment to openness and freedom. Google is not an odd pairing with the ponytailed geeks; RedHat is not an odd pairing with the ponytailed geeks; IBM is not an odd pairing with the ponytailed geeks; In fact, the ponytailed geeks already WORK at (and/or own) all three of those companies.

The point of this article is that governments, in an effort to get away from proprietary software, specifically proprietary software that is sold by foreign vendors (Microsoft, Adobe, etc.), are turning to open source, and that this will give open source a boost because suddenly you have entire countries deciding that their government infrastructure should be open-source.

If you had read beyond the summary and the first half-sentence of the article, you would have actually read a quite interesting and thought-provoking article on how IT is starting to be viewed as a critical component of national security by national governments the world over.

TL;DR: Loosen up that ponytail, broseph. The pairing of Vladimir Putin & Richard Stallman *is* an odd one, is noteworthy, and does have interesting implications and possibilities for Open Source's popularity.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[hairyfeet]

Uhhhh...how EXACTLY is this "good for open source" anyway? Isn't this just "TiVoization" on a national scale? i mean it isn't like Putin and Ahmadinjerk have suddenly embraced freedom and caring and puppies and shit, they want open source because they can just take it for free and once they've made sure they can't find any obvious back doors in it lock the holy hell out of it!

So I honestly don't see how this is in any way a "victory" for open source, anymore than bragging the Chinese death van another poster linked to uses open source for the ignition system. Because it isn't like these guys are suddenly gonna start playing by the rules and start acting all share and share alike you know. After all what is RMS gonna do, march into Putin's or Ahmadinjerk's office and DEMAND they follow the GPL?

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[tehcyder]

And what world view exactly do you think something called the Wall Street Journal would have? Collectivist-anarchist? Maoist communist? Revolutionary socialist? Religio-apocalypotic?

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[tehcyder]

I also like how they seem to be implying that being a 'computer geek' is somehow a negative trait. Who the hell do they think invents the hardware and writes the software they take for granted on a daily basis?

The sort of person who earns a few million a year on Wall Street would consider these jobs to be on the same level as a car mechanic or plumber, i.e. mysterious stuff you pay poor people to do, while you spend your time making real money and murdering prostitutes.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[h4rr4r]

I would have hoped something more practical. Perhaps even open to new views if it can aid them. This just shows that I was wrong.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[Americano]

It's possible that that's exactly what will happen - the open source software will be used as a tool for repressive governments to exert more control over their populace. In that case, the open source activists are going to have to consider whether they're okay with the fruits of their labor being pressed into that type of function.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[hairyfeet]

It isn't just "possible" it has already happened! How many years has China been running "Red Flag Linux" yet I don't see RHEL suddenly gaining from all the work the Chinese did, do you? Hell they even ripped off the WinXP interface and tacked it on so the average Joe there wouldn't know what they were using!

And considering China is pushing RFL for Internet cafes and their history of political repression you just know this has all kinds of monitoring software built in, yet I don't see source for any of that either. The simple facts are these: Repressive governments want control, and they don't want to spend money they don't have to to exercise that control. In this case Open Source makes a perfect useful idiot in that they can get all those millions of man hours of labor for $0 while at the same time being able to ignore any and all license requirements, no different than how they ignore the Windows Vendors on the corner selling how MSFT software. But of course having source gives them an advantage they don't have with MSFT, it lets them look for backdoors and insert all the nastiness they want. So I don't see how this can be seen as anything but a giant loss for FOSS and the 4 freedoms.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[Americano]

I don't see how this can be seen as anything but a giant loss for FOSS and the 4 freedoms.

You noticed that, huh? Me too.

For the record, I was clarifying the point of the article, in my response to h4rr4r - I wasn't necessarily saying I agreed that it's a good thing for open source, but it is an *interesting* turn of events when you see a bunch of repressive governments suddenly discovering true religion and embracing open source and "freedom".

I also thought that Stallman's 2007 visit to Cuba, and Cuba's subsequent announcement that it was embracing FOSS, and following in the footsteps of Venezuela under Hugo Chavez was comedy gold. That visit got a writeup here in Slashdot, and I was roundly down-modded for stating the obvious: that FOSS was just going to be used as a tool for exerting more state control over the people of Cuba and Venezuela.

Of course, the activists were too busy being offended by being described as ponytailed geeks to comprehend the actual point of this article. Apparently, reading comprehension is not a strong point.

Re:Thanks for the compliment

[hairyfeet]

Thanks for the link, which just proves what I've been saying (and been modded down for daring to point out) but more and more RMS with his radical beliefs is falling right into the role of useful idiot that the dictators just love to their faces and then LMAO when their back is turned. Does RMS REALLY think Cuba or Chavez-land is gonna suddenly hold his hand and dance through the flowers while embracing the 4 freedoms, when their people don't even have the right to speak? Can he REALLY be that stupid?

In the end I don't think it is possible for even a drop out of MIT to be that dumb. No he knows EXACTLY what he is doing and frankly doesn't care because as long as it pushed his ultra left agenda (go to his website and look at the causes) he will happily put blinders on to the evil being done with FOSS software or the fact his "4 freedoms" don't mean shit there. And to me that makes RMS WORSE than Gates, Jobs, and Ellison by a LONG shot. Because at least they aren't hypocrites. RMS will talk a good game about his "4 freedoms" but when some communist or dictator run country comes a calling he will happily let that freedom thing slide as long as they claim to be ultra left. that makes him no different in my eyes than the useful idiots of the 30s who were happy to ignore the purges and other evils Stalin did simply because he was communist. It should be about freedom and NOT left or right ideology, but apparently somebody forgot to tell RMS that.

FUD as in FUD

[Jane Q. Public]

Open Source, by its very nature, can't be "taken over". It is open for everyone to examine, and for anyone to fix if they find problems.

I do not doubt that governments may try to control the internet and other information access. But if they try to "take over" the software, then it is no longer Open Source, by definition.

I think muddling the issues of control and Open Source together will lead to little but confusion.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[high_rolla]

It may no longer be open source but that won't really stop them will it.

Interesting times ahead indeed.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it can. Keep an eye on your compiler. At first these guys will do it for "open source" and their own security, but once they get familiar with it, they will get ambitious and crack our build servers and sneak true back doors in.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Surt]

And it will still be Open Source. Just as we have always been at war with Eurasia. Authoritarian regimes tell you what words mean, and what reality is.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[hedwards]

Technically, that wouldn't really be opensource anymore. That would be apparently open source. It's definitely possible, there was that case back in the 80s with the BSD code, but in terms of the GPL, that would be a violation presumably.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[melikamp]

Bam. And I am tired of hearing about governments or corporation "walling off" the Web or Internet. To make a car analogy, these doomsayers are just like people who predict that evil governments and corporations will all of a sudden start building walls across existing roads in order to prevent people from traveling across the world. Of course, there are walls—we call them "state borders"— and sometimes we build more, but it is pretty damn clear that overall, traveling is becoming cheaper and easier for almost everyone. If we can transport physical goods more freely than ever in history, what are the chances that anyone will make it harder to traffic bits? FUD, nothing but FUD. Internet is here to stay, and to gradually become more widespread, more accessible, more democratic. We have to work to make it happen, of course, but it's a downhill battle from here.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Jane Q. Public]

Nonsense. There is a pretty clear definition of Open Source, and it does not mean software that your government (or anybody else) locks you into using.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[houghi]

No need to crack anything if you own the cloud.
You can easily use OSS without giving away your source. You can even contribute and give back to the OSS community and STILL you have all the info you need. You just don't give back YOUR code.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Jane Q. Public]

That is exactly my point. If they do it, and it isn't (any longer) Open Source, then why was the subject of Open Source broached at all? They could do that with any software they chose. Open Source is only a red herring here, and its inclusion is bound to muddle the issue.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[grcumb]

Open Source, by its very nature, can't be "taken over". It is open for everyone to examine, and for anyone to fix if they find problems.

Until they outlaw compilers.... 8^)

I think muddling the issues of control and Open Source together will lead to little but confusion.

Seriously, I think this analysis is a pretty overt attempt to sully FOSS' reputation by characterising it as a tool of autocrats, yet ignoring the very characteristics that make it resistant to abuse. The unspoken comparison here is that commercial, proprietary software represents Freedom and the American Way while FOSS is the product of greasy hippies who have once again sold out democracy in pursuit of their Leftist ideals.

Yes, I'm overstating the case, but just because the author used genteel language doesn't make his point any more subtle or accurate.

There are a number of things that Morozov might have fit into the space provided that would have made a more nuanced point. Not the least of which is the ability to, uh, view the source, meaning that even if you are using State-sponsored software, at very least you can see what they're doing. The prospect of removing the nasty bits is also left untouched.

It's possible, even likely, that Russia and others actually do think that they can keep the source open for themselves and closed to others. But that's only because they too haven't thought it all the way through.

Lastly, Morozov's point about a 'walled' web is not fundamentally wrong, but he neglects to mention that there's more movement toward a 'walled garden' vision of the Net from the commercial actors than from state actors.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Jane Q. Public]

You can USE Open Source software without giving away the source... but other people will have already given it away. If you modify it and distribute your changes, then (in almost all cases), you are required to distribute the source as well. If you don't, then it isn't open source anymore. That's what Open Source means.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

traveling is becoming cheaper and easier for almost everyone.

Paying more (for things like checked luggage and fuel surcharges) for less (no more meals on flights, etc.) is not my idea of "cheaper" and getting my naked picture taken (or alternatively being molested) is definitely not my idea of "easier."

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/04/strange_loops_dennis_ritchie_a.php would be a GPL violation, or are we talking about different things?

Re:FUD as in FUD

[icebraining]

If you modify it and distribute your changes, then (in almost all cases), you are required to distribute the source as well.

Wrong. Only a very small subset (GPL and its derivatives) of the Open Source licenses actually require you to share your source with your binaries. Most (BSD, MIT, Apache, MPL, zlib) don't.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Jane Q. Public]

You are correct about being able to distribute, but you have missed the point that those aren't open source anymore. So you're still wrong. Open Source requires the source to be... wait for it... open!

Re:FUD as in FUD

[melikamp]

I am talking about long-term, worldwide trends. The world is a lot more open and traversable than it used to be. Realize that traveling even a few hundred kilometers used to be a real hazard to one's life just a few centuries ago, and even if one could reach the destination in one piece, there was little guarantee of welcome. On the short run we may see the price of travel rise a bit as we are transitioning away from fossil fuels. We may see some political reaction too: terrorists attack US because of how it conducts its oil business. But eventually (and it looks like pretty soon) we will run out of cheap things to burn and switch to a fusion reactor conveniently located 8 lightminutes into our backyard, and the price of energy will stabilize and start going down again, just as the efficiency goes up.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Daniel Dvorkin]

There is a pretty clear definition of Open Source, and it does not mean software that your government (or anybody else) locks you into using.

The definition of open source is orthogonal to being required to use the software. If your government (or anyone else, such as your employer) says "you will use Linux," you're locked in; it has no effect on the open-source-ness of Linux itself. OSS has the advantage of being less prone to vendor lock-in than proprietary software does, but that's a separate issue.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Surt]

The definition of Open Source is as malleable as any other definition to the authoritarian/fascist state.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Surt]

BTW, if you haven't read 1984 you may not have fully understood my comment.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[amicusNYCL]

You're arguing about a grain of sand and missing the larger point.

A government takes something like Linux or Apache, a piece of open-source software. They're using open-source software. They have programmers that make a few changes to it, and send it out to wherever it's going. You can argue all you want that the software is no longer considered "Open Source Software", in capital letters and everything. And yeah, don't worry, they're not going to abide by the licensing terms so they aren't going to be considered a part of your community anyway. But give it a rest, they're using open-source software, for the same reasons that anyone else does.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[palegray.net]

Wrong. Only a very small subset (GPL and its derivatives) of the Open Source licenses actually require you to share your source with your binaries. Most (BSD, MIT, Apache, MPL, zlib) don't.

That's a very misleading statement. While there are tons of OSI-approved licenses, and many others that haven't been subjected to any formal review criteria, I'd love to see statistics on how many projects use licenses that require code sharing versus those that don't. Given the enormous growth in popularity of the GPL alone over the last decade alone, and my personal memory of over 20 years of open source and free software, I strongly suspect the number of projects that require sharing code will dwarf the alternative.

In fact, the GPL seems to have become the "default" license for free software in many respects, even though many people who license their code under the GPL honestly don't understand the license at all (that comes directly from my personal interactions with lots of developers). This is an unfortunate state of affairs from some perspectives, but it's reality. I license the majority of my code under BSD-style licenses, but I freely (haha, I'll be here all week, tip your waiter, try the veal) admit that I'm most likely in the minority these days.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

With the exception of the minority of licenses that are copyleft, most opensource licenses don't require anything from the user or distributer about keeping the source code for your modifications open or distributing it with the binaries.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[melikamp]

True, but I disagree about "less prone", and I am thinking back to my very recent experience with a Verizon phone. A robust Free software license is the only way to make lock-in more difficult. OSS is just, like you say, orthogonal.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[palegray.net]

And yeah, don't worry, they're not going to abide by the licensing terms so they aren't going to be considered a part of your community anyway.

You're missing a point here, actually. To use the GPL as an example, those who modify the code are not required to make those changes public unless they're distributing the code outside their organization. For large government entities, well, those are very large organizations. It doesn't mean they're violating the terms of the license at all.

Additionally, I've been a direct observer of code produced within a government agency being contributed back upstream. You're probably going to want to split hairs by replying with something like "oh but some governments will still find ways to break the license," but that would just make you guilty of the same behavior you just accused the GP of displaying.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Jane Q. Public]

I am not the one missing the point here. You are.

With a name like AmicusNYCL, you should know that Open Source software, just like proprietary software, comes with legal obligations. If a government can do what you say, i.e., usurp the rights behind a piece of Open Source software (many of which have the clout of large corporations behind them), then they can do that to proprietary software just as easily. At which point whether it is Open Source or not becomes completely irrelevant to the issue, which was the point I made originally.

Thank you for making my point for me. Although I already had.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[palegray.net]

In addition to my previous reply, I went to the trouble of finding some open source license adoption statistics for you. I'm sure there are bunches of other data sources available via Google.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[timeOday]

The unspoken comparison here is that commercial, proprietary software represents Freedom and the American Way while FOSS is the product of greasy hippies who have once again sold out democracy in pursuit of their Leftist ideals.

I expected it to read that way. But for me, it didn't:

For ordinary Internet users, there is one silver lining: The embrace of open-source technology by governments may result in more intuitive software applications, written by a more diverse set of developers. The possible downside is that the era of globally oriented services like Skype may soon come to an end, as they are replaced by almost certainly less user-friendly domestic alternatives that would provide secret back-door access. As governments seek to assert control, companies will be providing fewer and fewer guarantees about both data security and access by third parties--such as governments.

The embrace of what will result in more intuitive software? Open-source technology.

Who will be providing fewer guarantees about security and privacy? Companies.

Tycoons and hippies (to use opposite caricatures) have something in common - distrust of government. That sentiment does pervade the article, but it's getting harder to find anybody who will take issue with it.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[xero314]

There is a pretty clear definition of Open Source...

Yes and that definition is that the "Source" is "Open" for anyone to examine. Open Source does not mean free, or that the source can be modified, or that it can even be distributed. Open Source simply means that the source is open for examination. It is possibly to have proprietary open source. A person or company can create a completely proprietary solution covered by the usual restrictive intellectual property rights yet still reveal the source. Just because the source is revealed it doesn't mean you have any special right that you would not have had if the source was closed.

Point being that Open Source is not necessarily Free, in any meaning of the word.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst is when the present it like some sort of EULA. What the fuck are they thinking?

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

And when did "Commercial Actors" stop being "State Actors" exactly?

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Jane Q. Public]

Thank you. All too often people confuse "open source" with free, or certain licenses, etc. Open source means source that is open. That's really not very "malleable".

Re:FUD as in FUD

[eugene ts wong]

I had a feeling that you were referring to that, but you said it so cleanly [for lack of a better word], that I thought that you were speaking all on your own, as opposed to referring to something else. Your post is a great example of why some books should be mandatory reading: it allows us to communicate without having to explain ourselves every single time.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh i see, so I guess this is nonsense after all~ The Open Source Definition

Re:FUD as in FUD

[tehcyder]

in terms of the GPL, that would be a violation presumably

Best of luck enforcing that in Russia or China.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Surt]

Yeah, I had hoped that the odd insertion of always at war with Eurasia would at least force a double take that might cause someone to look it up, but apparently not.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[amicusNYCL]

I don't think the license comes into play at all. If I'm an autocratic ruler, and I want to use some software, I'm not even going to read the license. I may be violating it, I may not be violating it, but I have no idea and frankly don't care because I haven't even bothered to look into the terms in the first place. It's the software I care about, not the legal terminology that people in other countries want to insist governs the use of that software. I'll tell them to kindly take it up with my foreign minister/army general.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[amicusNYCL]

With a name like AmicusNYCL, you should know that Open Source software, just like proprietary software, comes with legal obligations.

Uh huh. Tell the government of the Congo that if they want to make changes to Linux and distribute it to their organizations and their citizens that they need to release their changes. See how much they care about what you call "legal obligations". I think they may be more worried about controlling their rape squads than making sure they're in compliance with some arbitrary software license. Yeah, for the sake of argument it doesn't matter if they co-opt open-source or proprietary software, but they're going to have a much easier time getting the source code for open-source than they are for proprietary.

Hence, in all likelihood they are going to favor and choose open-source over proprietary, just because it's more accessible. In theory it doesn't matter if they pick open-source or proprietary, because they could abuse either. In reality, they're going to pick open-source.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Jane Q. Public]

You still don't get it.

If somebody modifies open source software, and gives you the modified version with, just hypothetically, a "back door" or censorship feature or whatever, there is nothing preventing you from just going and getting the OTHER, truly open-source version, and using that instead. THAT is why open source is more "secure", and why it can't be "taken over". The "additions" are there for everybody to see, and anybody to eliminate.

Further, your final paragraph just repeats an argument that has already been put to bed: if they can do it with any software, then it doesn't matter if it's open source or not. That becomes completely irrelevant, except for the one thing I just mentioned: open-source will still have other versions you can easily get, while proprietary software may in fact lock you in.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[amicusNYCL]

If somebody modifies open source software, and gives you the modified version with, just hypothetically, a "back door" or censorship feature or whatever, there is nothing preventing you from just going and getting the OTHER, truly open-source version, and using that instead. THAT is why open source is more "secure", and why it can't be "taken over". The "additions" are there for everybody to see, and anybody to eliminate.

Really? A farmer who gets paid $2 per week is going to walk into his local government-supplied internet cafe and recompile the kernel? What about the government-run national gateways, are they going to monitor traffic and find out where people are going? About the source in general, is the user even going to be able to find the source for the government OS in the cafe? As far as the user is concerned the software might as well be proprietary, they don't have access to the government's source. Yeah, they can download other open-source and proprietary software, assuming the government lets them or they're skilled enough to know how to mask their traffic. I'm not sure the ability to go download the official version is unique to open-source though. Is the Opera browser less "secure" and more prone to being "taken over" than Firefox? I mean, why doesn't this statement apply:

If somebody modifies publicly-available software, and gives you the modified version with, just hypothetically, a "back door" or censorship feature or whatever, there is nothing preventing you from just going and getting the OTHER, official version, and using that instead.

The strength of open-source software is that you can download, inspect, and change the code. That doesn't happen when the autocratic government doesn't release its changes. China isn't even autocratic.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Jane Q. Public]

If we ignore the silly idea that someone making $2 per week is very concerned about his Linux box, then I would say "Yes, it happens in China all the time."

Despite your example, Chinese citizens are very good at getting around the "Government-run national gateways". To the extent that they even say "It's no big deal. We can get around it any time we want." Haven't you been keeping up with the news?

You have an unrealistic faith in the ability of totalitarians to actually control their citizens. The "control" of computing today in China is little more than a facade. According to the citizens themselves.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[amicusNYCL]

That's fine for a world economy in the world's most populous country. I gave that as an example because it's really the only one we have. But I'm more concerned about the smaller nations that have been dealing with wars for decades and don't have the same level of education that the Chinese do.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[Jane Q. Public]

Well, how about this one then?

How the Internet, Anonymous, Facebook, and Twitter helped the citizens of Tunisia to oust a tyrannical ruler after 20 years.

Re:FUD as in FUD

[amicusNYCL]

First, I don't think the internet, Anonymous, Facebook, or Twitter brought down Ben Ali. I think the people of Tunisia did. Did those things "help"? Maybe they helped people communicate, but the people in the country were clearly upset (you can tell because of the college grad who decided his best option was self-immolation). I don't really want to take away credit to the actual people and give that credit to the tools they used. The demonstrators in Iran had the same tools available, for example, but they weren't successful in achieving their goals.

Anyway, software is great, technology is great, people are great, tyrants suck, etc etc

more secure?

[bdrees]

FTA: "Beijing and Moscow see American information technology as a threat. They want systems of their own" and "especially programs sold by foreign vendors, has immense implications for the country's national security. "
How does open source help fight security in the short term? wouldn't open source make it easier?

Sounds to me more like a cost savings move than a security move....

Re:more secure?

[Capsaicin]

How does open source help fight security in the short term? wouldn't open source make it easier? ... Sounds to me more like a cost savings move than a security move....

Easy. They can inspect the code and and see if any backdoors have been written in and take them out.

Re:more secure?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

How does open source help fight security in the short term?

Fight security? Did you mean improve security or fight vulnerabilities? In the short term it allows them to audit and improve the code, especially if they believe (as many do) that there are backdoors built into commercial, closed source OS's and applications.

Sounds to me more like a cost savings move than a security move....

It sounds to me like both. Also, open source allows them to move development to their own country and build up a strategic reserve of programming talent versed in the software the government uses and able to make security improvements and fixes, rather than being reliant upon foreign programmers that may or may not be available and may or may not be agents of a foreign power.

Short version

[DigiShaman]

Basically, the world's Internet has largely been boot-strapped by the USA and supplemented further by other western nations (EU for example). But the history of nations and their government span much much longer in time. As such, expect the rest of the world to shard off and look inward to support, innovate and replace most if not all vestiges of outside influence and replaced with a government command and control form of national IT rules and regulations.

A Shadowrun dystopia? Might not be far off in the distant future.

Re:Short version

[Anonymous Coward]

"A Shadowrun dystopia? Might not be far off in the distant future." ... except the magic bits, I assume...

It already is...

[Darkness404]

Open Source is already mainstream. Android has made Linux mainstream, most browsers other than IE and Opera are mostly open source, etc.

Re:It already is...

[Sulphur]

Open Source is already mainstream. Android has made Linux mainstream

2011 the year of Linux on the cellphone.

Re:It already is...

[h4rr4r]

Try 2010.
Heck, between RIM switching to something based on QNX, iPhone, Android and webOS the only one not running a grown up OS is WP7.

Re:It already is...

[melikamp]

Android is open-source, but it did not make open-source software mainstream. I would say, it's almost doing as much damage as any iPhone I've seen, directly as a result of Google not giving a rat's ass about what proprietary crap vendors screw on top of it. What we are looking at here is exactly the difference between Apache license and GPLv3. I rooted a new Verizon Android for a friend the other day, and it was like pulling teeth. It was a dirty hack done, I can only assume, by a dirty hacker, bless his heart, and there is no guarantee that it will survive the next big update. If ordinary users are not trusted with full access to their devices, and have a locked (for most practical purposes) computer with proprietary top and zero documentation, talking about the licensing of some software components is moot, and "open-source" is just a feel-good word.

Re:It already is...

[currently_awake]

Mainstream means it does what big business wants. The ability to add addware/spyware/dell/hp junk on top -means- you've gone mainstream.

Re:It already is...

[marcosdumay]

Here, one more vote for 2010 being the year of Linux on the cellphone. Unless you want to make it a decade.

The way the article opens:

[forkfail]

"the "open-source" software movement, whose activists tend to be fringe academics and ponytailed computer geeks" might as well read, "hackers and terrorists".

Re:The way the article opens:

[mmcxii]

Wow. Great leap you made there. I really question your motivations here.

Re:The way the article opens:

[FoolishOwl]

Whoosh!

Answer: They will laugh their ass off.

[lalena]

Question:

FTA: How will officials in Washington react when China's Tencent (with a market capitalization of $42 billion, almost twice that of Yahoo) or Russia's Yandex makes a bid for AOL?

Re:Answer: They will laugh their ass off.

[nomadic]

Wow, if we lost such a vital national asset as AOL, I don't know what we'd do.

Re:Answer: They will laugh their ass off.

[halivar]

It's okay. I had enough coasters saved up in the 90's to last me till Doomsday.

Re:Answer: They will laugh their ass off.

[mswhippingboy]

Would they have to change the name to ROL (Russion On Line)?

Re:Answer: They will laugh their ass off.

[FSWKU]

Would they have to change the name to ROL (Russion On Line)?

Most likely it would be Russian Online Federated Link (ROFL).

Re:Answer: They will laugh their ass off.

[Sulphur]

Would they have to change the name to ROL (Russion On Line)?

Most likely it would be Russian Online Federated Link (ROFL).

Russian Online Federated Link Moscow Access Office (ROFLMAO)

Re:Answer: They will laugh their ass off.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it'd have to be changed to ROFL or ROFLMAO, if both Tencent and Yandex bought it.

Proof!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally! Proof that open source is a Communist front! Where's McCarthy when you need him?

Microsoft is the shining light that will lead us out of this abyss!

Re:Proof!

[ae1294]

Finally! Proof that open source is a Communist front! Where's McCarthy when you need him?

Thankfully dead.

Microsoft is the shining light that will lead us out of this abyss!

And right into another deeper, moar horrible MS branded one!

Re:Proof!

[Anonymous Coward]

You had an opportunity to make a funny first post and instead posted a bunch of garbage like a gas-passing negro. Christ will not judge you kindly. In short, you and your entire family can fuck off.

Peer-to-Peer?

[Khopesh]

This article is very well composed, but does not mention peer-to-peer solutions, which avoid the big-brother problem. Projects like Diaspora are working on systems that implement this kind of P2P-based web using web-of-trust. I assume that Diaspora apps will be able to facilitate various services, hopefully including things like communication.

The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corporation (Fox News), which is probably why it didn't mention things like MySpace being owned by Murdock's political powerhouse, which is clearly along a similar (if not identical) line. Free Software best combats this with the Affero General Public License, which closes the "ASP loophole" by marking an implementation of the software as the same as its distribution (thus modifications must be made public). Examples include Diaspora (social media), Gitorious (software forge), and Identi.ca (micro-blogging) among others.

Re:Peer-to-Peer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are missing two key elements. With an authoritarian regime, license does not matter. GLP/APL violations. It doesn't matter, all governments have sovereign immunity. You can sue them only if they allow it. I suppose you can take the your complaint to the WTO or the United Nations. Those organizations have been so successful in the past.

And while the Great Firewall of China isn't perfect, with enough resources and a willingness to shoot people to enforce your laws, you can control what software and tools your people use.

Re:Peer-to-Peer?

[Cozminsky]

Diaspora is not peer to peer. It's a federated service like smtp or xmpp/jabber. The identity model is also that of the web which may not be rich enough to do a fine grained web-of-trust or get around despotic governments in its current form.

Re:Peer-to-Peer?

[Khopesh]

Diaspora is not peer to peer. It's a federated service like smtp or xmpp/jabber. The identity model is also that of the web which may not be rich enough to do a fine grained web-of-trust or get around despotic governments in its current form.

I'm skeptical of your assessment given its primary focus is decentralization, though Diaspora has such a small amount of documentation that I could be mistaken. If it does use an intermediary before it goes direct between the parties involved, that opens up a vector for a man-in-the-middle attack by Big Brother or whomever else. I'm sure that would be deemed unacceptable, so I am confident that Diaspora won't have this problem (assuming it even gets off the ground).

Re:Peer-to-Peer?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Free Software best combats this with the Affero General Public License, which closes the "ASP
> loophole" by marking an implementation of the software as the same as its distribution (thus
> modifications must be made public).

Yeah if only. Given that GPL enforcement is effected by an arm of the government [ie the legal system], if an autocratic government decides it wants to violate the GPL then good luck getting it enforced.

I like Puppy Linux

[cpu6502]

Especially now that they switched to Lucid as their base and can run the same programs as Ubuntu 10.0 uses.
Other cool free/liberated/open apps:
VLC Media Player
Firefox
SeaMonkey (firefox/thunderbird/chatzilla/composer merged)
jEdit
uTorrent

Re:I like Puppy Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

uTorrent is closed source, hate to break it to you.

Re:I like Puppy Linux

[h4rr4r]

There is also no linux version.

Re:I like Puppy Linux

[cpu6502]

Oh. Well it's free.

Re:I like Puppy Linux

[h4rr4r]

It is indeed no cost. That has nothing to do with this topic though.

Re:I like Puppy Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

That has nothing to do with this topic though.

Nor does your flagrant homosexuality, but it's interesting none the less.

The future of the future World Wide Web?

[noidentity]

The author, Evgeny Morozov, paints a bleak future of the future World Wide Web

Well, at least the future World Wide Web isn't so bleak, just the future future World Wide Web.

Re:The future of the future World Wide Web?

[mswhippingboy]

Those damn C pointers will get you everytime...

**futureWorldWideWeb = bleak;

"Finally?"

[fnj]

Open Source might "finally" become mainstream? It hasn't been mainstream for quite some time? What strange alternate universe is this?

Re:"Finally?"

[Korin43]

Clearly the fact that Google and Facebook are built largely on open source software is meaningless. Who's ever heard of those? No, it's when foreign governments start using open source software that people will pay attention ;)

Re:"Finally?"

[Monkeedude1212]

No, its not mainstream. It's the popular alternative, like that Radio station that plays a lot of Nirvana and Foo Fighters.

Re:"Finally?"

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

like that Radio station that plays a lot of Nirvana and Foo Fighters.

Thanks for that analogy grandpa. Do you know any bands from this millennium?

Re:"Finally?"

[Anonymous Coward]

None worth listening to. Especially in the 'mainstream'.

Re:"Finally?"

[AvitarX]

None played on stations that declare themselves alternative.

Re:"Finally?"

[Anonymous Coward]

The one that starts at the top of the basement stairs, often called the real world, the one where 99% of its inhabitants have never heard of open source.

Re:"Finally?"

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter, because that radio station is still playing a lot of Nirvana and Foo Fighters.

Re:"Finally?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard of one called "Just Imbibe Her". Typical satan-worshipping sex-fueled rock and roll I imagine.

Re:"Finally?"

[ToasterMonkey]

Clearly the fact that Google and Facebook are built largely on open source software is meaningless. Who's ever heard of those? No, it's when foreign governments start using open source software that people will pay attention ;)

So because Google and Facebook are mainstream everything they touch is by extension? Pass some of that over here please.

Re:"Finally?"

[rebot777]

I assume he's talking about mainstream for end users. From my experience this means open source is going to have to edge out one of the five brands people can recite.

Re:"Finally?"

[Americano]

Go back to listening to your new Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus singles, junior.

The adults are trying to have a conversation.

Re:"Finally?"

[russ1337]

Clearly the fact that Google and Facebook are built largely on open source software is meaningless. Who's ever heard of those? No, it's when foreign governments start using open source software that people will pay attention ;)

and funny thing is I work within a foreign government department and i've pushed open source fairly hard - The resistance is based around "American Enterprise don't use it so we wont either".

Re:"Finally?"

[Monkeedude1212]

I notice you failed to mention some too.

Re:"Finally?"

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I'm not the one making retarded music analogies. Am I?

Oh it will,

[fleeped]

.. on the Year of the Linux!

Re:Oh it will,

[ae1294]

.. on the Year of the Linux!

It's been the year of the Linux for a generation now just not year of Linux on the desktop.

Open source is a good thing all around

[C3ntaur]

I'm encouraged to hear that major organizations are finally seeing the light.

To use a (yet another, sorry) car analogy: Open source is like being able to buy a service manual and replacement parts at your local auto shop, and then doing the work yourself -- or paying a mechanic of your choice to do it for you. Closed source is more like buying the car with the hood welded shut, and any attempt to modify or service it yourself not only voids the warranty, but is actually criminal in some situations and jurisdictions. Moreover, the manufacturer is under no obligation to disclose or repair defects or "undocumented features" -- such as logging your travels and selling it to the highest bidder.

Re:Open source is a good thing all around

[benjamindees]

Actually that reminds me, on the subject of autocratic regimes and welded-shut hoods.

I recently did some work on a Ford that was having acceleration issues. It turns out, the problem was simple: the air flow sensor needed cleaning. Unfortunately, the air flow sensor is held in place by two "tamper-proof" Torx(TM) screws.

Now, as every self-respecting geek should know, there is really no such thing as a tamper-proof screw. In this case, it's actually just a "really expensive to remove" screw, because the special bits are patented and only sold through "restricted" channels (Sears). And thanks to that ridiculous Supreme Court case making such things legal, there are probably lots of contractual obligations attached. At Sears, the only option was to purchase an entire set of bits for $40. So, apparently, the strategy for making these screws "tamper proof" was to prevent the poor and people unaware of Sears from removing them.

A set of knock-off bits, shipped all the way from "autocratic" China, was only $2.

Re:Open source is a good thing all around

[Bengie]

More like a particle accelerator analogy. Here's the math and logic on how it works and the tools to change its settings. Have fun customizing and tweaking it to do what you want.

If the average person owned a particle accelerator, I doubt they could make any meaningful changes to its operations even with access to how it works and tools to change it. More than likely, they would just break something.

Trolling Finally becoming mainstream

[RaymondKurzweil]

After seeing that Amy Chua satire-that-really-isn't piece about not letting her kids go outside and now this that worries about the fate of the US once AOL(!!) is in foreign hands the US media is finally trying to beat the forums and blogs at their own game. It's not so much extremism to promote buzz, its just putting so much garbage that people can't look away, so it's a little different than what they usually do.

Obama kill switch imminent

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama kill switch imminent

Autocrazies?

[omems]

I thought TFA was going to talk about automotive enthusiasts reprogramming their cars' chips and the lack of cheap hardware/software for doing so.

Guess I need new glasses.

BIND, Apache, Firefox..

[19061969]

Good grief! Open source becoming mainstream? Have these people not heard of BIND? Apache? Firefox? PHP? Perl? Since when have these been marginal? Anyway, the article is mostly complaining that open source software might be put to bad purposes but that can happen with any software. Quoth: "The embrace of open-source technology by governments may result in more intuitive software applications," I wonder if the writer has ever used govt mandated software. Intuitive it ain't. The writer's other point about (eg) skype failing because of different systems being used - how many non-Chinese people here have ever heard of QQ? These differences exist already.

Re:BIND, Apache, Firefox..

[Noughmad]

Good grief! Open source becoming mainstream? Have these people not heard of BIND? Apache? Firefox? PHP? Perl?

Yes, they have not.

Re:BIND, Apache, Firefox..

[countSudoku()]

Consider the source. This is the WSJ. They know tech savvy like your grandma knows Katy Perry tunes. Which is, not fucking much. They can't see the "This is Open Source, you frickin' dolts" when they use their Android phone to get a Google search.

Reminds me of the jackasses who say they've never used Unix... Which I beat them down with; you've never picked up a phone? Every central office ESS5 switch is running Unix, and now the phones themselves are running Linuxy kernels to prop up the silly GUIs. The WSJ can't see the forest for the trees are all in the way! 8^) OH NOES!!1!

Re:BIND, Apache, Firefox..

[Anonymous Coward]

So by your logic someone who uses a website that is hosted on a Win server is a Windows user even if they access it from a Linux box? No wonder people have a hard time understanding where you're coming from.

As for the OP? Dropping Firefox was one of the best moves I've ever made. It's crappy bloatware anymore.

Re:BIND, Apache, Firefox..

[lahvak]

So by your logic someone who uses a website that is hosted on a Win server is a Windows user even if they access it from a Linux box? No wonder people have a hard time understanding where you're coming from.

If you telnet into a Unix box and run a program there, would you say you are not a Unix user? Does the protocol make that much difference?

Re:BIND, Apache, Firefox..

[RewriteQuran]

Wake me up when Open source is used on Desktops in Wall Street.

Re:BIND, Apache, Firefox..

[IllusionalForce]

Firefox is the only "mainstream" one. If we define mainstream as what most people use, there's barely Firefox. Normal people who don't code and don't administrate a server use neither BIND nor Apache nor PHP nor Peopl.

Re:Linux user since 1996 here

[houghi]

Winmodems where not the hardware I bought. There were plenty of good cheap alternatives available.

Can OSS take over governments?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, maybe the governments can be taken over by open source. Its hard to stop a movement that has no leaders, no location, and no assets.

Re:Can OSS take over governments?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, maybe in like 20 or 50 years. China is repressing people now, douchebag.

Logic fail

[starfishsystems]

"The embrace of open-source technology by governments may result in ... domestic alternatives that would provide secret back-door access"

Oh really? And how exactly is that going to work, given that open source is by definition not secret?

(I get that in a complex code base it may be possible to insert malicious code. But this is true of any code base, hardly a defining characteristic of open source.)

Re:Logic fail

[currently_awake]

It's actually doable. Just intercept all download attempts at the border and substitute your own version of the executable. Unless they actually download the source and compile it and then compare it to the download executable they won't ever know.

Re:Logic fail

[m50d]

The point is that open source makes it possible for every tin-pot dictator to have his own customized web browser (and mandate all his citizens to use it) - wheras if he asked MS to produce a custom version of IE with his evil logging in, they'd tell him where to stuff it (at least in theory). Which is true as far as it goes, but really just a side effect of the way open source lowers the barrier to entry, for everyone.

For desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

A popular alternative for desktop systems. For servers and mobile devices, it's nothing less than the norm.

Missed the big point

[Noughmad]

How will officials in Washington or Brussels react when China's Tencent (with a market capitalization of $42 billion, almost twice that of Yahoo) or Russia's Yandex makes a bid for AOL or Skype?

What will happen once Russian or Chinese firms seek to purchase a stake in companies like Google (a contractor to the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency) or Amazon (which caters to nearly 20 U.S. government agencies through its Web hosting services)?

The real problem here is not software, it's money.

Re:Missed the big point

[Yaa 101]

In deed, while blaming open source the real culprits of this problem are being hidden.

They are the big bonus grabbing traitors that outsourced or jobs and have been enabling the economies of dictatorships.

But the press is scared to death of that group, that is why open source is being blamed.

too bad democratic politicians aren't as nervous

[t2t10]

It's just too bad that democratic politicians aren't also nervous about wasting tax payer dollars on proprietary software, becoming dependent on the capricious whims of software companies, and become concerned about backdoors in their software.

Perhaps this difference in nervousness can be explained by the fact that democratic politicians are more susceptible to the financial and political pressures of corporations, while autocrats don't have to give a damn?

In any case, the whole article sounds like a smear campaign, trying to associate open source software with communism and "autocrats"; in fact, a number of democracies have also seen the light on open source software and also mandated its use there.

Legal?

[Joffy]

I thought Oracle bought the rights to the term open source!

Translation

[gmuslera]

They could start to use something that they could check that don't have any of our backdoors.

The article is a bit one sided...THEY could spy communications, THEY could plant backdoors, etc, etc... seems that US wants the monopoly on that topic too.

Did I miss something here?

[pasv]

When has it ever been acceptable that a government request its local tech companies to install backdoors? That puts them in a very difficult position to deny their own government while catering to the needs of their users' privacy. I dont blame Russia from wanting out of MS in the least

Re:Did I miss something here?

[currently_awake]

If the big telco's willingly installed secret intercept rooms in their switches, then it's clearly acceptable to install back doors (but only to catch terrorists! We promise!)

This is about non-cloud software and systems

[Khopesh]

Clearly the fact that Google and Facebook are built largely on open source software is meaningless.

This article is mostly about desktop software rather than web services. The WSJ author doesn't look at web apps and phone apps and the fact that they're going to obsolete the entire desktop software industry. Instead, the story focuses on servers and applications in general (think of Stuxnet's impact on Iran's nuclear reactor program and Skype's supposed back-doors). The cloud is another issue altogether and (outside of the protections afforded by the AGPL) tangential, in a longer-term scope of the problem. We still need short term solutions to tide us over.

With cyber warfare looming on the horizon, governments need to be ready. I'd be surprised if another GhostNet-like system doesn't currently exist, and even more surprised if there weren't a few governments --and corporations-- developing identical projects. Microsoft and the AntiVirus++ flavor of the month can't be expected to be able to fully defend, so the answer is to diversify.

Don't use the dominant platform and you won't be hit as hard. Make sure that the platform you choose is very well supported, and not exclusively supported by a group or company that might be aligned with "the enemy." For China, Russia, Iran, and many others, that means getting the hell off of Windows and MS Office and banning things like Flash and Silverlight. For major players that aren't tightly aligned with China, Russia, or the US, I suspect OpenBSD might be preferable to Linux (yeah, the example to give is de Raat's email about OpenBSD's compromise, but I'm pretty sure things like that will target the Linux kernel in the future).

In that short term, end-users will win. In the longer term, at least within this scope, the article pretty fairly outlines the kinds of walled worlds we're headed to. ... Don't forget that companies like Facebook are independently erecting their own walls (e.g. Facebook messages already trump email with teenagers). Diaspora and other P2P systems might be one of our last chances on that front (which I noted earlier).

AGPL

[Khopesh]

With an authoritarian regime, license does not matter. GLP/APL violations. It doesn't matter, all governments have sovereign immunity. You can sue them only if they allow it.

Ignoring the law, it might create some stigma when a violator is looking for community support, especially when that community includes an allied nation. Exposing massive teams of developers to something like a F/OSS project will also expose them to its origins (since scrubbing that information would be too harmful to be worthwhile), which might make for some appreciation for the idea, even if it takes a generation or two to sink in ... though don't forget the intense parallels between socialism and Free Software. The two work well together, especially in the bazaar model.

Distribution

[afabbro]

The GPL says you only have to distribute source if you're distributing binaries outside your own organization. It uses the term "third party" to define when distribution has taken place. But "here in Evilstan, all of our citizens are one big happy family. We reject your American notions of individuals. We are all one organization."

Of course, the problem is moot because the Evilstan courts are constrolled by Evilstan's dictator.

Open source will become mainstream...

[Anonymous Coward]

.... when code and languages become much easier to understand.

Right computer languages are in the dark ages.

Tool

[Alex Belits]

Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.

And here is how his employers describe his career, in particular:

Between 2006 and 2008, Morozov was director of new media for Transitions Online, a Prague-based media development NGO working in 29 countries of the former Soviet Bloc, and has also been a fellow at the Open Society Institute. In addition to being a Schwartz fellow, Morozov will be a visiting scholar at Stanford University as of Sept 2010.

This is apparently one of "oppressed Russian journalists" who would write anything as long as it's against Putin, and someone pays for it.

OSS is already mainstream, moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

Five words are usually enough.

Year of Desktop Linux is an annual holiday

[judeancodersfront]

December 20th

Re:Year of Desktop Linux is an annual holiday

[ae1294]

December 20th

But that's a single day not a year?

Re:Year of Desktop Linux is an annual holiday

[judeancodersfront]

It's the day that you celebrate the past Year of the Desktop Linux.

Exporting freedom is good. Covert action is bad.

[FoolishOwl]

The most astonishing thing about this atrocious article is that not only does it not question whether it's legitimate for US institutions to undermine and manipulate the political and economic institutions of the world, it actually, openly proposes that openness is a threat, because it inhibits covert action.

The point of free and open source software is freedom. That is not the point of US power blocs and their covert operations.

levels

[Tom]

First, aren't these people right in distrusting commercial US-developed software? It's not exactly as if backdoors, or US secret services influencing commercial entities, or the combination of both were an unfathomable, never-seen-before idea. On the contrary, if I were leader of a country even just friendly with someone who once knew someone who is related to someone who is currently on the US shitlist, I'd consider that a healthy dose of caution.

Two, isn't that what the concepts behind Internet technology were designed to do? Provide everyone with the same protocols, so they can have their own implementation of them? As long as my mail server is speaking SMTP, I can write it myself.

sense, the common type

[Anonymous Coward]

if we could simply focus on the achievments of opensource. and the shortcomings and criminal actions of the closed door corporations.document and share that information so that people can make better, informed decisions and continue the revolution of freeing ourselves from indecent software systems, then there would be no need for any other actions, besides the creative and inspired actions that the opensource community does take!

Re:Exporting freedom is good. Covert action is bad

[ZmeiGorynych]

> actually, openly proposes that openness is a threat, because it inhibits covert action.

Where exactly? It does say the trends it discusses will make it harder for the US and the FBI to control what's going on, but where does it say it's a bad thing? Quote please.

I misread the article

[FoolishOwl]

I re-read the article, and I clearly read into it things that weren't there. The author's argument seems more that the US IT industry is harmed by the government's attempts to enlist it.

I like Puppy

[cpu6502]

Especially now that they switched to Lucid as their base and can run the same programs as Ubuntu uses. Other cool free/liberated/open apps:
VLC Media Player
Firefox
SeaMonkey (firefox/thunderbird/chatzilla/composer merged)
jEdit
WinAmp (like the built-in AACplusSBR support)

This simply won't happen

[satuon]

I don't see the Chinese people going to Linux en-masse and not being able to play games, and no Windows software, or the Russians for that matter. How is open-source going to become mainstream? Are they going to send people to every house to reformat every computer to Linux? And what about the accounting software, probably even most of the government institutions would continue to run Windows just to have Excel.

Re:too bad democratic politicians aren't as nervou

[beignet]

This. In democracies, those who speak most loudly are heard and occasionally pandered to, in authoritarian countries they are surveilled and occasionally crushed.

We don't need communists for that

[iamacat]

Open source will become mainstream as businesses realize that continued existence of other businesses and their products is not guaranteed. Google, Apple and Adobe recently illustrated this point by strategically dropping each others technologies. Even using such closed source mainstays as Windows is fraught with peril. Any luck running applications based on VB6 or IE6 lately?

Anyone who is currently making money from mission-critical closed source software should take note. This doesn't mean they all have to become hippies or service companies. There are other solutions - patent licenses, source code escrow, open source engine with closed source UI - that will address concerns of their potential customers.