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." "

Comments

Dogma

[joss]

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.

predictable political agenda

[jetson123]

Reilly recites the standard litany political ideas represented by well-funded think tanks at the right end of the political spectrum:

• 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.