Slashdot Mirror
Linux a "temporary phenomenon"
scenic
writes "A Washington "Think Tank" has a
report
complaining about the new "Assessing Microsoft"
conference. In particular, they have an issue with the
OSS remedy that many, including Nader and Love, have
proposed (i.e. opening up the Windows source code).
There is quite a bit of stuff concerning Linux (about a
quarter of the long article) and why OSS and Linux are
temporary phenomenons created by "media interest in
identifying a viable competitor to Microsoft." "
This is my latest theory about free software.
Free software represents the transition in the software industry from a product based industry to a service based industry. As you all know much of the industrialized world is in this transition as a whole, moving product based economies down to less developed nations. Software is also in this same transition.
Most software companies already realize that the most money is going to be made in support. In fact, whenever I complain to a jounalist about unfair or incorrect coverage, I usually receive a response along the lines of "You don't understand the real world. In the real world, support costs are higher than the software itself, so free software doesn't make a difference."
If this is true, then it would make sense that competition will flourish among companies providing support to free software, simply because more companies can acquire the intimate knowledge required to provide quality support. No longer will you have to go to the "vendor", who has a monopoly on support, but your choice among several. More companies means more competition which will mean higher quality and lower prices.
There is definitely going to be huge resistance to this change. Companies like Microsoft and Apple have so much invested in their proprietary architecture that unless they make major changes they risked being pushed to the wayside. However, given the size of their resource base, this is obviously going to take a long time. This is just the same as the transition of the economy as a whole.
I would imagine that this process could take upwards of 30 years or so. Obviously 30 years is a long time in the world of computers and the internet, so who knows what can happen in the mean time. However to call the free software a "temporary phenomenon" is just completely ridiculous. If anything proprietary software is the temporary phenomenon which took hold due to a certain confluence of factors. The transition to a service based industry is anything but temporary, nay, it is inevitble.
Mr. Reilly forgot to incude his bio and email address with his article, so I'm posting them for your convenience:
Patrick Reilly, Research Associate and Editor, Foundation Watch, Organization Trends
PReilly@capitalresearch.org
Before joining CRC in 1997, Reilly was the executive director of Citizens for Educational Freedom, a national school choice advocacy group. He has bachelor's degrees in print journalism and political science from Fordham University and a master's in public administration from American University.
slashdot broke my sig
Linux is obviously a LEFT WING PLOT so those ANARCHIST RADICALS can overthrow the AMERICAN WAY! Those PINKO Finns are trying to bring down true AMERICAN companies like Microsoft, who use the capitalist FREE MARKET to produce the best, most reliable software! You can tell they're COMMIES, because Ralph Nader likes them! And everyone knows he's a LIBERAL! If they have their way, there'll be open standards and software everywhere, and then who knows what'll happen to good, solid AMERICANS like Bill Gates, who stand behind every byte of code their companies produce!?
Man, I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry reading that article...
John Campbell, at Radical Anarchist Headquarters, signing off...
"I'm a rich white guy. My father is a rich white guy, and his father was a rich white guy. Back in the day, life was good. We told people what they needed, why they needed it, and where to get it, and nobody argued. We kept as many people as possible under our thumbs, 'cause it kept them from getting uppity and upsetting our power base.
Now, you have people speaking up and making their own decisions and all kind of foolishness going on. Some have even gone so far as to think that they can become rich white guys. Is that what this country is founded on? Don't answer that. If you think too hard you might hurt yourself. Just listen to ol' Uncle Moneybags, and everything will be okay.
Tell you what. Make me a hundred shoes a day, and not only will I pay you enough to buy a pair someday, but when you do and then can't afford to eat I'll have some of my friends drop by with some food on holidays. Won't that be nice? Just listen to Uncle M and it'll all be okay. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."
I find it really interesting the way that these people speak out of both corners of their mouths. First they talk about why the Open Source model is inherently flawed, then they cite Linux as a serious competitor to Microsoft. They need to develop some kind of consistency. Either the Open Source model is truly inherently flawed, in which case Linux is as much a fad as the hula-hoop, or else it isn't, in which case Linux has the potential to maim Microsoft. It can't be both.
Most of us reject the idea that the Open Source model is a fad. As someone commented earlier, this "fad" has been going on for something close to thirty years. While it may not be a strict economic model (from their point of view), that doesn't mean that it can't survive in a market economy. A good example of this is Red Hat, who have found a way to sell Linux solutions to Linux newbies and business people.
To say that Linux can't survive in the market, and then to say that it is a viable competitor to Microsoft is contradictory. This article is not credible, simply because it has no consistency. Of course, it would help if the people who wrote the article had some understanding of the basic grammatical structure of English (did they never learn about apostrophes?), but that's a side issue.
I personally believe that Open Source is a viable model, but someone who wants to convince me otherwise should take the time to ensure that their arguements aren't mutually exclusive.
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
These people are not free market economists; they have a very basic misunderstanding of the concept of value. Value is not measured strictly in dollars; it can take many forms. As ESR has discussed in the past, there are several non-monetary currencies in the Free Software marketplace.
Take a look at the home page for these folks, and read portions of the article. This isn't an attack on open source for it's own reason, but because Nader supports it. That's enough to convince them that it's bad.
(Now, I'll admit to a high correllation, but almost nothing is 1.0)
Nah, these guys make Reagan, Reagan's speeches, and even his administration look like leftists.
Reagan antitrust enforcement was heavily of the "if it benefits the consumer, it's not anti-competitive." But this line of anti-trust reasoning does not jibe with the arguments in the article.
These guys *defend* practices of exclusionary license, and keeping API information information secret as both legal and good.
The Reagan crowd sees cut-throat competion as good, and believe its benefits outweigh its consequences. You can debate whether they're right or not, but that's where they came from.
These guys explicitly support barriers that are repugnant to that view. You can debate whether microsoft engaged in these practices, or whether they *should* be legal, but current law says 'No', and and the economic analysis behind the Reagan policies screams, 'NO!!!'
hawk, esq., antitrust lawyer & economist
CRC is one of those Reagan think tanks founded to safeguard the interests of minorities (such as wealthy individuals or corporations - the poor wee things) against powerful pressure groups such as unwed mothers or disabled people.
Theie assertions are provided without any arguments based upon logic or facts. Example:
'How could anyone but a radical anarchist support a concept like "free software"? It may seem like a boon for consumers. But they should realize that a market totally free of prices is not likely to produce quality merchandise and will quickly collapse.'
Except the quality merchandise already exists and shows no signs of collapsing. So, what is the assertion based upon ? They seem to be saying
"The existence of free quality software is inconsistent with our theories --- therefore the world is obviously going to change so that the facts will become consistent with our beliefs"
A more rational group might reason as follows:
"The facts are inconsistent with our theories --- therefore there might be something wrong with our theories".
These people are TRUE BELIEVERS though, so they make assertions and back them with their beliefs
'But OSS has a fatal flaw: it is based on a false theory of production.'
What does this mean ? OSS will not work, and here's why - it won't work because it is based on a "false theory", and how do we know this theory is false - easy, it's different to our theories so it must be false.
These guy's should have worked for the Spanish inquisition. They've got the techniques down pat.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
I think all this "mis-information" and "illogical" conclusions about the death of OSS stems from deep paranoia.
Let's look at the arguments against OSS:
1: Law suits..
Q:Who do you sue if something breaks?
A: How many times has MS been sued for a "flaw" in their software?
2. If Proprietary software disapears people will stop inovatingm including the OSS hackers.
A: Why would hackers Stop hacking? the reason OSS exists isn't because proprietary software exists.. but because "hackers" exist. (And every day there is more of us)
3. With proprietary software gone all those coders will be out of jobs.
A: There is always a need for customization withing companies. Good programmers will NEVER be out of a job. (Unless someone can come up with an AI that can spit out code)
That's just a few arguments that are commonly used as scare tacticks. And they are all based on the "I'm scared of it so it can't be good" logic.
Ex-Nt-User
----
My favorite parts:
"Unix is a proprietary operating system intended to compete against Microsoft Windows"
I thought that originally Unix was distributed for free (source and all, with no support) because AT&T was prohibited from entering the OS market. Unfortunately for the folks at Capital Research, Unix had to wait several years before it could begin competing with Windows, because Windows didn't exist yet.
-----
If you go back and look at the article they are referring to GNU's Unix... Which I suspect they are referring to HURD.
As I recall the full sentence is more like...
"GNU's Unix which was developed to compete with Windows, proprietary Unices from Sun, HP, IBM and others..."
I'm curious how you expect to comment on something you haven't read properly?
----
Most software companies already realize that the most money is going to be made in support. In fact, whenever I complain to a jounalist about unfair or incorrect coverage, I usually receive a response along the lines of "You don't understand the real world. In the real world, support costs are higher than the software itself, so free software doesn't make a difference."
----
They're not talking about paid support for software, they're talking about all the support costs consumed by the business.
i.e. learning the app, installing the app on 2,000 desktops, answering questions from endusers, figuring out why it just broke, etc.
These aren't support costs which can be farmed out. Well they are in that consultants might fill those positions, but that consultant type is a generic desktop or server admin, not a product specialist.
Product specialists may be brought in for a week or two initially to help identify the best way to install and deploy an application, but that's about it.
There are other recurring costs going down the road... training, and data conversion if you have to switch products, or upgrade products.
That's a simplistic definition, but I hope you get the point. Maybe when you get to the Real World you'll have a better understanding.
1) We'd all be using X all the time because it's kind of hard to show a parade of advertising pics at the bottom of the console.
2) Instead of a penguin, we'd have that dog from the Taco Bell commercials for a mascot
3) Tonight on Springer: vi/Emacs mixed marriages; can they survive? And a special segment: how to pronounce "Linux."
4) "We're sorry, this program is blacked out in your area" suddenly takes on a whole new meaning.
5) Al Gore would try to take credit over the Net for creating the media.
...anyone got any others? This one just begs for jokes to be made. Honestly, how clueless can this writer be?
How could anyone but a radical anarchist support a concept like "free legal arguments"? It may seem like a boon for consumers. But they should realize that a market totally free of prices is not likely to produce quality legal arguments and will quickly collapse.
Actually, the "free legal arguments" movement is not opposed in theory to sale of legal services.... The word "free" refers not to price, but to the removal of restrictions on repeating, delivering, improving, and redelivering legal arguments once they are presented in court or otherwise obtained.
But OLA (Open Legal Arguments) has a fatal flaw: it is based on a false theory of production. For the sake of an imagined voluntary cooperative, OLA rejects free market competition and loses the market's distinct advantages to meet consumer needs with quality legal arguments and targeted marketing. By contrast, in a free market, identifiable lawyers own the arguments. They are responsible for their performance, and they can be held liable for inexcusable flaws.
OLA shows that Nader and his allies' "self-proclaimed consumer advocates" do not have in mind the best interests of consumers. His support for legal anarchism would deprive lawyers of their property rights and deprive consumers of standard, quality legal representation.
I am deeply disturbed by this product of a "think tank". To me, it only
;)
;)
reenforces what I have experienced in my own life, of late, the isolation of
the ivory tower. The authors in this essay base their opinions on the fate of
the OSS movement on equaly idealistic principles that are no more realistic
than the "ideals" they claim are the OSS's Achiles heel. For example:
But OSS has a fatal flaw: it is based on a false theory of production. For the
sake of an imagined voluntary cooperative, OSS rejects free market competition
and loses the market's distinct advantages to meet consumer needs with quality
products and targeted marketing. In a free market, identifiable manufacturers
own the product. They are responsible for product performance, and they can be
held liable for inexcusable flaws.
Since when has Microsoft ever been held responsible for thier product flaws?
What about Mellisa, for example? What about the Blue Screen of Death?
How can they get away with charging $89 for their bug fix to Win98 (aka
Windows 98 Service Release 2)? There has been no sense of responsibility shown
by proprietary software manufacturers, nor has any such responsibility been
forced on them.
OSS advocates also claim software distributors can make money by distributing
software free of charge, while providing support services and instructional
materials for a fee. This half-hearted accommodation of private ownership
suffers the same flaws. It assumes that companies can survive by offering
support for nonstandard software that is found in many forms.
Hardly a valid asssumption. Ever look at the prices companies charge for
tech support? If your out of warranty/grace period, don't count on spending
anything less than $25 for any question you might have. I imagine the
coorporate accounts are even juicier.
Unix is a proprietary operating system intended to compete against
Microsoft Windows; originally OSS, later versions of Unix were made proprietary
by Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard and other companies.
It would be nice if these people at least got their facts straight. UNIX is
originally an OS developed by Bell Labs, unless I'm mistaken, over thrity years
ago. That predates the very inception of Mircosoft. Perhaps we have, of late,
been talking of UNIX unseating the Windows monopoly, but that's only using the
tools that existed before the prophanity known as DOS was even written.
Linux is a good example of how Microsoft's competitors have attempted to
exploit the open source concept. It was created in 1991 by Linus Torvalds, a
student at the University of Helsinki, who wanted to improve upon Unix and
distribute an OSS operating system free of charge.
Hmm...from what I knew of the matter, Linus wrote it to have his *own*
UNIX. Good god, the idea of one person thinking they could improve upon UNIX
from scratch is ludicruous. Besides, how does one "improve" upon something so
complex and diverse? UNIX is so vast and nebulous in its nature. Is it the
kernel, the tools, the filesystem, the drivers, or the paradigm? (This was a
rhetorical question, not a real one
Linux is building a following among computer users who have sufficient
technical knowledge to take advantage of the source code. That, of course, is an
important limitation of OSS: it appeals primarily to those who have an interest
in tinkering with programs.
Microsoft must love it when non-affiliates engage in their Fear,
Uncertainty, and Doubt tactics. Anyone ever heard of Redhat? Or maybe about
upcoming distributions such as the Corel one which is targeted at ease of use?
(No distribution wars, please
Windows operating system intact while holding on to the Windows source
code, even Linux supporters acknowledge they cannot compete with Windows.
I have yet to meet or speak online to a Linux/*BSD user who truly feels that
way about the matter. I'm sure there are those out there who feel this way,
but I don't care for the authors' painting this as a community-wide opinion.
Besides Linux, the only other OSS developments that have found much
success are the products of Microsoft's competitor Netscape.
What? Pardon me, I guess the *BSD's, StarOffice, KDE, and Gnome products
are no good and never used. It's bad enough when academics use assumptions,
but they could at least do the research right.
In the end, the facts and assumptions of this essay are unfounded, erroneous,
or just plain wrong. I'm a great fan of captialism, it goes hand-in-hand with
democracy. Yet I believe it was Winston Churchil who said, "Democracy is a
terrible form of government...but it is better than all the rest."
Likewise, Capitalism is a terrible form for an economy...but it is better than
all the rest.
The assumption that free-markets will always provide the best product is
easily disproven in cases not involving software. Take Beta vs. VHS. Though
this may be arguable, from what I understand, Beta was better technology, hence
better for the consumer, yet VHS won the war. How about Mac vs. IBM? I'm no
Mac fan, I hate Apple's proprietary nature, but consider that the GUI, which is
usefull to non-techies, was in a product on sale for six years before an
IBM-compatible machine equilvalent (ie, Windows) was developed. Granted,
Windows is a nasty OS, but it is the fact that IBM maintained dominant market
share for six years, becoming the standard for hardware to the present day,
while a better way for the every-day user to operate his or her machine existed.
I don't worry much about this article, though. It's nothing more than the
unfounded drivel of academics who live their lives in a vacuum. They may have
their theories, which have some foundation, but in the end, the proof is in the
pudding. As companies learn of the stability of Linux and the BSD's when they
migrate servers from NT and Gnome and KDE make the desktop a more realistic possibility
for them, then Windows will start to lose corporate marketshare to the *NIX's.
When Joe User's company switches over, he'll have no choice but to get the
same for home, thus nibbling away at the Windows home user market. Game
manufacturers will see the marketshare start to shift, and code for Linux.
Within five years, we may live in a completely different landscape than we do
now, and the DOJ trial will seem humorous and irrelavent.
They just keep missing the point.
Free Software is NOT about "Ralph Nader's Agenda" (whatever that may be.) Nor is it about "Competing with Microsoft."
Free Software is about software - and in a broader sense technology - returning back to the public grounds. Technology should not remain locked up in the safehouses of the few who have (money- or knowledgewise), but instead should flourish in the common culture.
Openness of the Stuff that programs (or technology in general) are made of is a prerequisite and the best guarantee for a continued interaction between development and use of programs (technology) in our human culture.
Locking up knowledge is a dead end for humanity.
The Gartners, Brownses and the rest of the FUD slinging professional truth-mongers just don't see this. Maybe they don't like to, clinging as they do to their business of selling you the truth, in a handsome report.
But lets focus on the contents of this "Trend Analysis"
Once again, a "report" appears to be humming the well-known FUD theme "who are you going to sue?"
I'd like to see these "consultants" for once to come up with some detailed cases of customers sueing software vendors for buggy software. In any case, I've never heard of any substantial case.
For example, did anyone ever successfully sue Microsoft for the bugs in their software?
These incredible dimwitted reports are really starting to annoy me, because they are so flagrantly untrue and disrespective of the plain facts of reality.
With Free Software, the question is not "who are you going to call if things break", the question is "who are you NOT going to call if things break."
With Free Software, you can call virtually any skilled software engineer to fix your programs, because the code is available.
This might even be far cheaper than stumbling in the dark to pinpoint the cause of problems, losing time and money on the phone with your vendor's (clueless) "tech"-support drones, losing even more time argueing with the vendor about who's to blame and finally paying premium for a "custom" solution from your vendor, costing a multiple of the original (buggy) software.
Linux maybe a temporary phenomenon that is getting a lot of press because it is a real competitor to Microsoft. But I doubt the whole concept of OSS is temporary. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and applications like Apache prove that OSS success is not hardly limited to Linux. I hope we can educate writers in the future to distinguish between OSS and Linux.
-Weld
I have to take issue with the "temporary phenomenon" quip. It seems to me that Linux has been around 6 years, UNIX has been around for decades, and Kernigan (inventor of C) released an entire language under "open source". Open source supports much of the vast infrastructure of the internet - sendmail & apache, bind, for example.
To say that it is only temporary is to show a complete disregard for the history of the internet, nay, computers at large.
--
"media interest in identifying a viable competitor to Microsoft." ?!
When will these people see that Microsoft is NOT the centre of the universe?
On the other hand it took a long time for them to understand the world wasn't flat.
All of this pseudo-analysis is worthless. The market will sort out the validity of open-source. This of course, will take time.
One distinction that should be made I think is that demand for linux is not fueled by its open-source nature. Demand is fueled by the fact that it is a very inexpensive way to get a solid unix-like OS on to commodity hardware. Most users couldn't even tell you what path the source code is in.
The OSS movement isn't competetive, according to this article, making it seriously flawed and likely to collapse from rarification. These individuals haven't stopped by to see the holy wars on Slashdot, or the bitter interfactional fighting that goes on when a project forks. I think 'survival-of-the-fittest' is alive and well in the OSS community. As for it being a passing meme, it's a valid point, if you ignore the fact of how long it's been in the media background. Emacs, anyone? The BSD 4.4 Controversy? These things happened well before the Microsoft Hearings.
Perhaps these thinktanks should do research outside what they read on USA Today, and take a look at the community which they are trying to assess, instead of accepting third-hand accounts.
OSS rejects free market competition.
What free market is Patrick talking about? Isn't free choice a "free market". Where in OSS does it force users to use particular software? IMHO, free market means free choice. Therefore, I can use any OSS software I feel is necessary and apply it to my needs. For proprietary software, is there a "free market"? I say yes; I can coose any software that comes closest to my budget and needs. However, I would not be free to have any software to my specifics needs. Therefore, I don't understand Patrick's conclusion that "...OSS rejects free market competition and loses the market's distinct advantages to meet consumer needs with quality products and targeted marketing". There is no "distinct advantage" any where in proprietary software in meeting consumer needs.
[Manufacturers] are responsible for product performance, and they can be held liable for inexcusable flaws.
I have not seen any examples of this. Who has ever sued Microsoft over "inexcusable flaws"? I don't see this argument as being a fatal flaw either. How can a company like Microsoft ever meet consumer needs with such a diverse group? OSS seams to fit that better, in that anyone can modify the source to fit the real needs of a consumer. So not everyone is a "hacker". Support can fit this role very nicely. If I don't want an in-house software group, I can hire a support company. They can modify the source as they see fit. If I dislike their service, I can go to another support provider and keep the software (and the ex-support company can too for that matter) and not loose in a long adjustment period. To me, this is flexibility which is not a fatal flaw rather the Golden Egg.
I only read half the article and got bored with it. If I contradict the author in my context, please post them!
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
- Only the desire to maximize profits drives people; since Linux doesn't make any profits, it must be shoddy.
- Windows is popular and exists in a free market, therefore it must represent consumer preferences accurately.
- The value of a product is measured by how much people are paying for it; because Linux is free, it doesn't have any economic value.
- Any information, creative or incidental, automatically represents a property right, so requiring companies to disclose their APIs amounts to "deprivation of property rights".
There is more, but that let that suffice. (I'm reminded of Dilbert's comment that he likes circular reasoning because it leaves no loose ends.)A careful economic analysis of these issues needs to take into account, among many others, notions of public goods, cooperation, non-monetary economic goods, opportunity costs, and multi-attribute utility.
One of the most blatant problems with Reilly's ideas (and it is representative of a particular political agenda, not sound economics) is that it incorrectly describes human behavior in a quite fundamental way. It should be obvious to most people who have spent any amount of time at top research and development labs that it isn't profit that drives top quality researchers and developers (but, I suppose given that Reilly works at a conservative Washington think tank, that lack of experience is understandable).
In fact, one of the reasons for the low quality of Microsoft products is that their development seems primarily driven by short term profit considerations rather than an interest in quality. This actually seems quite reminiscent of the US auto industry, which produced large, inefficient cars and ran into serious problems when nimble, small, cheap Japanese and European cars became available. The analogy to Microsoft and OSS should be fairly obvious.
Reilly's piece is full of misrepresentations and factual mistakes. It's not worth expending time on analyzing them all, becaue the most fundamental blunder he makes is that he thinks that OSS is an alternative to the free market.
Far from it: OSS succeeds because of the free market. That has nothing to do with a short-term desire of harming Microsoft (a kind of "software dumping"?), but because it makes long term sense for individuals and companies to cooperate on operating system development. It's free market economics at its best.
People like Reilly like to assume the mantle of "free market economics" and "conservatism", but they really just represent economic interests that want to avoid free market competition as much as possible. Ensuring a functioning free market requires that the market is governed by orderly rules and regulations; otherwise, we would have social Darwinism and anarchy. Given the economics of software development, I'm sure an orderly free market is all OSS requires for its long-term success; at least OSS is up for the challenge.
And for consumers who actually like Microsoft software, I don't think he has to be concerned: OSS and Microsoft will live side-by-side, hopefully with dozens of other choices, as is proper and desirable in a free market.
I got the impression from reading the histories of UNIX that AT&T, at least at first, was fairly good natured about licensing it's UNIX & C code to whoever wanted it. I got the impression that the licenses weren't cheap, but they weren't expensive either, and AT&T wasn't very discriminatory about who they licensed the code to. So they weren't open, but they were at least fairly good natured about this. Is that true or just a mis-impression?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I think we can all agree that this essay is a load of crap...but I think that we need to be carefull of having a knee-jerk response when stuff like this comes out. Whenever something criticising linux/*bsd FSF or whatever comes out, people jump all over it. As a community, it would be better to sit back, analyze what other have to say, and attempt to address potential weeknesses. Even essays such as this can have one or two things worthy of consideration, if only to determine what type of logic underlies the criticism. I thought that these people brough up two points vaguely worth of consideration.
A. Long term viability. Lets face it, the current boom is a fad masking over a long-lasting tradition. But this fad is bringing in valuable support. In the public eye, Linux will fail if it falls back to being a geek toy, sure, it can continue on indefinetly in that manner, but the public doesn't care about that. They only care if it affects them. Maintaining a broader user base, and Linux is heading for now, is important for Linux to become something other than a server OS (I think the classic FSF model works fine for server), but the variety of software needed for desktop software by nature demands wider support, and this support comes from users. Assuming one wants Linux to become a desktop platform in addition to a server platform, maintanence of this broaduer user and vendor base is necessary,and at this point, as this support depends largely on hype, a long-term solution is needed. (note: contrary to many, hype isn't all bad, I think it helps reach a large amount of geek-inclined, tinkers or idealists who other wise would never of heard of this. Their not the tradational linux users, but hey, the more the merrier.
B. There is a slight contridiction in stateing that software should be free, than stating that it is ok to make money through support, education and the like. When one thinks about this, it means that software is only free to those who don't need support, IE geeks (most of the time). There is a dicotomy that needs to be resolved between "free" code and the ability to make money...the current model just doesn't hack it, the free except for other things...either its free or it isn't. I personally would like to see a case where all vital tools are available oss, ie, OS, server tools, office suite, web browser, and the like, whereas more eclectic things may remain proprietory, such as games, weird niche apps, whatever. Propriatory software does have a place, we just need to remove the issue of its closedness from being a barrier to new entries who may not be able to afford the cost of propriatory software, such as kids, new companies and organizations, people in underdeveloped areas and the like. This would level the playing field, but still allow for commercial activity.
On a completely random note, I think that contrary to these people, OSS is a perfect example of a free market. The notion of a free market implies that there are many providers and customers are free to give their support (i.e. usually money) to the one that they feel is best. Theoretically, this leads to the best product winning, which we all know is not true. We do not and have not for some time lived in a free market economy, we live in a oligopoly, where a few large providers are able to control the market. This is not free market, the average consumer is not forced to decide between competing products, and the best product does not always, or even ever, win. OSS brings this back, replacing the resource exchange of money with the exhance of ideas, support and the like. Yeah, its messy, thats the way the free market was intended to be. Current defenders of the free-market are defending something that, on a large scale, died long ago and are acting as intellectual pimps for companies.
whew.....getting off of soapbox now.
Brian
BTW: I know of analytical firms/thinktanks that take oss very seriously, its just the better ones don't make alot of hype or follow hype. Their view of OSS's future seems to be positive, though not leading to world domination.
This has got to be the most boneheaded report on free software I have ever seen. This goes way beyond FUD.
Last I heard, Mr. Nader was not a leader in the free software or OSS movement. He isn't pro-OSS, he's anti-MS. Big difference. The premise of this article is that if Nader approves it, it must be wrong. Gee! If Nader approves of drinking orange juice for breakfast, would he write a report on how the citrus industry is socialist?
Free software is the PROOF of free market economics. OSS isn't the equivalent of a bunch of hippies living in a collective commune. It's making software economics behave like every other product economics.
From the surface, this site looks like a pro-business conservative think tank, but I think it's really a shill for the neo-fascists and populists.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If Open Source is a "temporary phenomenon", then so is the internet.
For a far more eloquent rebuttal to exactly this kind of thinking, click here.
They describe the problem with Free software being when thousands of products are built under it and they are all evolving then the market will be chaotic for the consumer and then colapse. The market already functions in those conditions and consumers do fine, it sounds like they are supporting the idea of a big monopoly and one company with control of each particular industry. Heaven forbid that MS has competition and consumers have to choose which products they buy... I wonder how all those car buyers work it out, I mean, there must be 150 different makes and models to choose from but they all some how end up owning a car.
I'd also like to know who their sources are that said Linux can't compete with MS if they win the anti-trust case. All of the big free software king-pins don't seem to even care what happens with MS. It seems really trivial to me, we have more workers, more tallent and motivation. We can out code MS any day of the week. That leaves the market with a situation where all we need to do is provide what MS provides to have every economic edge because our product is free. If that was our goal, we would be there in no time. Instead we've raised the benchmark so we are providing more than MS (stability, choice, better looking, more function, easier to use (it's comming along...)) How can we not compete with MS? They can out market us and they've got a lot of pull with important people and companies but if CRC believes in Adam Smith as much as they act like they do then it's a NOP, GNU/Linux and Free Software will win as long as there are people willing to write it. For a company, excuse me, a foundation, that is supposed to study philanthropy and non-profit organaizations they seem to discount it an awful lot, especially considering the people who are doing it aren't just doing it for the cause but because they love to do it.
That might be the only fad, the number of people willing to write it, but I've seen too much to believe that.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
Wants to say "far from likely" but decides the more honest "far from certain" will probably align the same way in the readers mind.
The key is "premature" no? since when was planning ahead of time for a possible contingency considered the "encouragement of premature discussion"?
Really, now. Are we to believe that a "market totally free...will quickly collapse" is some kind of economic axiom?
We couldn't get anyone on record to say outright "I am opposed to software sales under all circumstances," so we'll just say that "in theory" this isn't what these loonies believe, it's precisely what they believe "in practice." Throw in the word "idealist" for extra fright.
Right. We made it up and I'm presently doing some "imagined" stuff with "imagined" software that happens to include some fantasy items like Perl, and Apache and GNU tools, and (why should I even go on?)
When's the last time this guy read a MS EUL agreement?
The real clincher. You will have to constantly attend to upgrades, possibly become dependent on something that becomes outdated and in all circumstances, your collegues will not be able to read your documents because the information will not be compatible. Yes, this is a problem when you use, for example, microsoft Word to write your documents.
Sorry, but I just can't bear to continue.
Peace.
In the long term, Linux is destined to rule all operating systems. Why? Because the ruling techno-elite of the future, I mean the people who will head up IT departments and be making all of the real decisions, are all Linux enthusiasts today. The Comp. Sci. majors running Linux and *BSD boxen in their dorm rooms today will be dominating the industry tomorrow.
So, Linux is not a short term phenomina. In the very least, it is the future of a long and glorious UNIX tradition; at most, it is the future of the Opreating System.
No sig.
I absolutely agree; proprietary shops will bend over backwards to solve a big customer's problem. I think that OSS supporters will bend even further.
First, get one thing clear. If you're a small outfit, or a home user, you can get your support from USENET and similar sources. If you're doing serious work with OSS and can't afford to have it down for a long time, you must have support. You either have a support department in-house that understands the software, or you have a support contract with an outside entity. If you fail to do this, you deserve to lose. Linux General's Warning: This Is Not Free Beer. If you buy Linux so that you can pay nothing, you will fail.
That being said, and assuming that you actually buy a support contract, an OSS support organization will bend over backwards to solve the big customer's problems just like a proprietary vendor would. The OSS support team will bend over further because you can hire another organization, or do it yourself. The proprietary house has some control because it has the source code; if you want to change support organizations, you have to purchase and deploy new software. If your OSS support team fails you, you can use the same software and a get a new team; your users may never know.
--The basis of all love is respect
Well, as far as being a conspiracy, it's a pretty benevolent one for the big corporations. Well, except Microsoft. But most big corporations are not in the software monopoly buisness, and they stand to gain a lot through lower licensing costs and higher reliability.
In other words, they like to portray Linux users as black sheep; rebellious teenagers with nose rings and leather jackets, thumbing their collective noses at Bill Gates, taunting "Neener, neener! We're not using Windows!" And while it is true that there are people who use Linux for exactly this reason, from my experience this is not what drives the average Linux user.
People like Linux because of what it gives them, not because of what it takes them away from. The Redmond-centrists who believe that the industry revolves around Microsoft will probably never be convinced of this, but on the other hand, who cares? Microsoft is a lot less relevant to the growth and success of Linux than a lot of Slashdotters seem to think.
He also writes:
What this individual doesn't get (and, indeed, what just about every opponent of OSS doesn't get) is that the fact that a piece of software is free is not enough to guarantee it widespread acceptance and success. Sure, it doesn't hurt, but anybody who attributes the success of Linux solely to the fact that it's free is woefully incorrect. It almost seems as if they are completely unwilling to accept that a piece of free software can be fundamentally better than a piece of commercial software. "Don't listen to people who tell you about its supposed quality!" shouts the OSS detractor. "They're just using it because it's free!"
Complete nonsense, of course.
In fact, Linux is succeeding in many places in spite of the fact that it's free! Case in point: I work for a large corporation where we are currently in the process of migrating a series of NT workstations to Linux. The process that we had to go through to get this done was long and arduous, and most of the opposition was due to the fact that the management types simply didn't trust a "free" operating system. For us, the fact that Linux is free really doesn't matter; in any medium- to large-sized shop, the amount of money spent on desktop operating systems is miniscule compared to the buckets spent on server iron and large-scale software. We had to fight to convince them that the "free" Linux would be a better choice than the commercial Solaris x86. In the end, I'm happy to report that we won.
The bottom line is that a piece of software, be it a rinky-dink application or an operating system, will only succeed and be accepted on a large scale if it is fundamentally better than its competition, and unless the numbers are particularly extravagant, price isn't a very big consideration (in corporate markets, anyway.) If somebody comes up with a better solution, people will use it
Sorry about the length.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground