Correction: what we call PC today used to be called the IBM PC, which was IBM's response to the hugely successful Apple II (the first mass produced personal computer), and which came with the 86-DOS operating system created by Seattle Computer Products and purchased by Microsoft.
QDOS bore little resemblance to the DOS that Microsoft released. If you choose to pick out the GNU userland as a point of innovation (i can't disagree more, it's just a relicensed clone of existing unix tools), it's good to point out that Microsoft offered a software stack to go on top of that OS in the same way GNU utilities were used on top of linux. The author of QDOS has himself made the claim that MS-DOS 2.0 shared no common code with QDOS except for the line editor. When Microsoft purchased QDOS, they also purchased its author as a contractor and eventual employee- it was a solid business move to compete with CP/M.
My argument is that Microsoft kept pushing for aggressive undercutting of a rather expensive computer industry, putting true application development tools and a simplistic OS in the hands of users. Microsoft brought a lot of things together- they offered Windows, a graphical OS that ran on hardware a quarter the price of Apple's competition (and ridiculously cheaper and faster than unix-based alternatives)
Do you really think there would have been any standardization without things like the PCI specification or would the computing industry still be like the game console world if Microsoft had not dominated by offering software for a specification as opposed to software for specific hardware?
We owe it to Dell and Compaq for following those specifications, sure- but I do believe Microsoft has been the maintainer of the various PC specifications since the beginning.
However, without Microsoft software, we would have never seen the price of computing dive into regular joe range. The FSF didn't accomplish anything noteworthy without Linus' blind and aggressive campaign to write a great kernel for some strange reason.
I don't believe BSD would have ever become Linux had the Linux movement not existed. As far as I remember, the free software movement that Linux is a part of actually came from DOS hackers. That's what gives Linux its feel- it's a 386 unix, not a unix for 386. In other words, it's not about unix, it's about the PC- and the PC begins with Microsoft.
RMS is simply unable to look at the reality of the PC revolution and how it affected the open source world. Microsoft helped drop these cheap little computers into peoples' laps and stick them on the internet. The universities were never going to create anything usable without all those dedicated DOS hackers. The world without Microsoft and Linux is a world of extremely expensive corporate unices and obscure free software projects furnished like plan9. Without the drive towards accessibility, perhaps Apple would have been our Microsoft and Amiga our Apple? Without Microsoft undercutting the computing industry for years, perhaps the free software movement would never have any target to aim for.
Even Firefox comes from Mozilla which comes from Netscape which was quite popular on Windows. When you remember that hatred of Windows ME and IE 5-6 has driven so many developers to work on alternatives, doesn't it seem unlikely that a software counter-culture like F/OSS would ever be at its strength without a culture to counter?
You see, there's this thing called economics. Third world countries often find themselves in a situation where they're bombarded by vendors who know how sell to a third world government- because they don't have the economic clout to throw their weight around. An open source scion does not arrive in a taxi cab and convert the government- a big corporation treats a warlord to a nice dinner and tells him how their product will make his country strong and respected. If it weren't Microsoft (it isn't Microsoft all the time anyway), it would be IBM (remember, the old Microsoft), Sun, or some other tech vendor.
Internet Explorer is more of a utility and is generally presented as such. If you think Microsoft, with its coffers of gold, is unable to create a wild buzzed-up marketing campaign for IE that competes with Firefox's you're wrong. Firefox is a marketing behemoth while IE's footprint is rather subdued. For this reason, IE will generally get more Automatic Update customers than technology enthusiasts or web enthusiasts who will be using Firefox. To think that many web and blog sites' viewers are not web enthusiasts would be simply naive. Imagine what the web stats would like on samsclub.com, walmart.com, or maybe even amazon.com.
Microsoft needs to have IE because it underlines the Microsoft platform as an Internet platform- if they were to concede the browser market, little would separate the usage scenario between Microsoft Windows and Ubuntu Linux for most modern (especially younger) users. I think Microsoft seeks to deliver a platform rather than just an operating system and the web is an integral part of that.
Otherwise, as long as most open source projects like OpenOffice and Firefox still run in Windows (and they run well in Windows), it will continue to be a thorn in Microsoft's side but not fatal. I think Sun invests very heavily in these cross-platform open source projects because they realize that if enough Windows users start using something cross-platform... well... they might just not see why they're needing to buy Windows anymore.
If Debian with its IceWeasel BS is not free enough for you then you have problems. gNewSense also suffers from a badCase of camelCase.
If nothing else, I think gNewSense is probably a good barometer for what the open source movement is actually contributing. Then again one might see it as a massive waste of time. As far as I'm concerned, the first package I installed in my system is and always will be *ubuntu-restricted-extras. Canonical made huge strides by dumping their debian-esque ways of the past and embracing the common users' desire for functionality. The reason I use linux is so that my software usage is not really bound by any rules or laws other than the that of the masses. If people want it to work a certain way- it often does. This seems to me like it's more restrictive than commercial software that I can do whatever I damn well please with, ethics be damned. Linux does what I want how I want it- we should keep it that way. Free is still free as in costs no money and that's what users really care about.
I would recommend this as a great alternative for anyone who doesn't use their computer as a computer so much as an urn for hacked, broken, reverse-engineered drivers.
Thank you for edu-mu-cating me. I didn't realize that the only difference between Somalia and the Western world was their lack of a government. (Please note the sarcasm.)
That's ironic that you chose that statement. The parent was not the most well thought out post, but you picked a point there that's completely accurate. Yes, organization and resource allocation largely separates the Western World from places like Somalia. Sure, we have a larger amount of resources, but Somalia's resources are not efficiently used because of a general lack of central organization and competent planning.
Well said. It's well known that Linux, Mac, or Windows can be quickly hacked with physical access. In defense, government, and security scenarios physical access to any Windows, Linux, or Mac workstation has to be restricted and technically have armed guards at all times if no other security is available.
However, high security boxes are not supposed to have any of these important files stored locally anyway- they use network accounts which are not stored on the box. Therefore, you would need physical access to the server. For this reason and more, computer security has always worked this way.
Whoah! You managed to discredit yourself in the first line. Anarcho-capitalism? Has that ever existed outside of comic books and movies and places like Sierra Leone? Does this mean that you watch movies like Mad Max and Waterworld to get your political ideology?
Wait- I've got to go to the store to pick up supplies- I better strap on my six shooter and bring toll money for the bridge across the creek.
The answer to all your problems is to move to trouble-regions in Africa or deep rural South America, where laws and government intervention don't exist.
The abstract solution to intellectual property in the political system that you believe in involves belonging to some sort of clan or gang or threatening someone with a gun or explosive. It is not possible to have enforced intellectual property rights in anarcho-capitalism without targeting peoples' lives, food supplies, or shelter through the use of force or exile. I would recommend looking into the way theft was dealt with during the dark ages. Of course, under anarcho-capitalism you could always just bribe the "cop" or tribal enforcer with some gold or perhaps a loaf of bread if they might come after you for stealing someone's "intellectual propery".
It might sound like "LYNCH HIM, HE STOLE MAH IDEAS."
Of course, if we should take such an economic turn, we will be a Russian, British, or Chinese protectorate so fast that we won't even need to worry about solving this problem. Cheers! TWO COME IN ONE COMES OUT!
Right, well, there's definitely some validity to something that can be all your textbooks and more. In the OLPC context, this product has generated a lot more developer interest than other brands of important academic involvement.
While we're on the solution train, let's talk about a realistic solution that is transparent to this issue.
Portability is a big issue, and as such we need something that goes beyond all issues of platform: pure content. More often than not, the wiki approach to free textbooks provides decent information presented in a subject-locked format, as people more or less like to contribute that which they are specialized in. As anyone with an education background can tell you, lesson plans are intricate. The best option would be a series of Creative Commons licensed textbooks that are basically labeled as 1st grade, 2nd grade, etc. with all included core subjects. These should represent the basic requirements of primary education. This core unified textbook should include a teacher's edition and a model lesson plan. Under a creative commons model, they are free to be translated or censored by a government which would otherwise restrict education to protect itself. These should be available in three formats: a text only format, a format where all images and diagrams are represented as black and white line art (for cheap black and white printing), and a full color format. This will provide maximum portabiliy between the digital and paper format, allowing greater freedom to the nations in order to apply solutions.
Whether an idea like this is read in an XO or on paper should be completely transparent, but one thing is certain: this is larger than just free software. I disagree wholeheartedly with the belief that this project should be restricted to the free software platform, as education should be able to cross idealistic bounds to better garner talent, usability, and to serve the students and governments which employ it. If Microsoft wishes to donate their expertise to this matter, they should be welcomed.
It's a well known fact that code will always resemble the institution that produced it, to some extent. To describe the Microsoft code as "poorly structured" is likely a bit out of touch.
The absolutely best kernel code is generally extremely beautiful and descriptive when dealing with the system's abstracts (with nice, long descriptive names for each function) and then unbelievably hellish and ugly in the sections that deal with hardware. Kernels represent an intersection between the idealistic system code and the hideously complex and inhuman machine interaction code. For this reason, we gauge the value of the systems based on how cleanly they compile into assembly, their performance, and ideally how well they do what they were written to do.
Kernel code fills such a complex role in the computer science paradigm that it is likely impossible to gauge the value or quality of any of them through any sort of automated means. What we have here is a mess of a research paper that comes to no obvious conclusions because they didn't really discover anything. If it were of any value, its final summary and conclusions wouldn't be so obfuscated. The researcher may or may not have mastered the art of understanding the zeitgeist of kernels but he certainly hasn't mastered the research paper.
I've always found the XO to be a lot more useful for self-congratulation than actual education. It was a fun feel good project for everyone, but it ultimately ended up being a Redhat venture. Here we think of Redhat as a 'good guy' company and Microsoft as a 'bad guy' company, so we dismiss the fact that this project is monetized from the start.
If I were involved in third world education, I would not waste time or money on this OLPC project. Dvorak (i believe) once called this an American solution to an international problem. The reality of the matter is that a third world school needs only a handful of computers (if even) if they want to teach students about computing and a whole hell of a lot of text books, decent teachers, and paper and writing utensils for its students. If we were really interested in the welfare of these places, we'd have intensive programs to bring African college students to America to train them on engineering, infrastructure, and education. I'm sure this happens to some extent, but the reality remains that Africa is the world's dartboard for idealistic half-solutions to very real problems.
If I was Negroponte I would arrange eduction for these leaders and I would invite Stallman, and I would talk myself. It is of uttermost importance that these countries not fall in the same trap as large parts of the Western computer illiterates have done.
Arrange for a massive meeting of third world leaders to have a burned out hippy explain to them why they should not embrace business and money? You're implying involving Stallman in a major world consortium on anything other than maintaining emacs?
You fail this thought experiment. I said "let's pretend we're not idiots for a second" and here I've got one idiotic comment.
So why would I respect Gates more than Stallman? This is really quite simple. Gates is a self-made wealthy man who donates billions to philanthropist activities. Stallman is just some former hippy who talks a lot about an American software counterculture movement. Stallman disabled the wifi module on his XO Laptop because it wasn't free. If I lived in a place where we had very little, I think I'd be more interested in functionality than ideals. In Africa, people make use of garbage technology like windmills from bicycles and such, they do not patent these things and they pay not attention to the license or patent of what they're working with. They simply can't afford to. Licensing crimes are only an issue in nations that can actually afford licenses in the first place. It all comes down to Maslow's hierarchy. People on slashdot want to make the third world into an idealist software world the same way missionaries want to make it into an idealist Christian world. In reality, they will embrace any of these ideals if it means getting their hands on more money and food and medicine for their growing population. However, if someone offers just a little bit more to them- like in the case of a working Windows which can be used to train technology professionals instead of the completely lame and useless Sugar, which only applies to young children who will never use real computers- they might just take it on account of what's more useful.
Most students just use the XO to look at porn anyway. If I were a third world leader, I would be more interested in buying a printing press and set of modern books so I can just create bootleg textbooks for my nation with the money you spend on that little toy.
Do you guys really think this whole thing is some goofy conspiracy? Come on. Let's put this into context:
I am a third world leader. A company is trying to sell me educational laptops for about half the price of regular laptops. I ask about why we are using laptops instead of getting old text books. They say that they will provide a technology education for students as well, so they can compete in the world market. But wait. Computers in the US don't run like this. If this isn't good enough for the American students, why are you selling it to me? Are you implying that our students can't use the same tools as Americans? Why are you selling me a product built completely out of free software. Since I am a third world leader, I likely find the idea of free software to mean it's of lesser or commodity value. I think it is an issue of pride. Why, American computers run Windows. If we want to compete with them, our children need to know how to use Windows, as well.
I think it makes sense if you assume that the people in third world countries might want their populace to be computer literate to attract jobs, not just so that their students master the art of using some goofy inapplicable children's interface that has no relation to regular computers built on the high minded ideals of Richard Stallman.
If I were a third world leader, I would likely respect Bill Gates a lot more than Richard Stallman. Think about it. The poor dream of being rich, successful, equal- not alternative, counterculture. The counterculture is a luxury of the wealthy. These people likely don't see the same infinite potential in open source so much as they see themselves receiving something which is valueless as it comes at no cost. Realize for a second that people in the third world will not share the same sense of blind religious idealism about this as American and European IT professionals and college students.
For this reason, Negroponte is able to push more OLPC's in more nations which might otherwise go for a competing solution that runs Windows, or something very similar. For this reason, both Microsoft and Negroponte's goals are reached- and the OLPC still ships with a linux system that the students can use if preferred.
It makes a lot more sense when you imagine that there are people out there who don't quite *get* the whole free software religion. There are quite a few, believe it or not.
If you think that the whole point of this project was to shove free software down the throats of every single child in the world, then you probably don't really care about the educational value of this: children's curriculum will revolve around much more than software, anyway. Most will never look at nor care about the source code but rather the math and science and language tools. Perhaps what you really care about is pushing your beliefs on those who can not afford to accept otherwise. This is not question of good vs. evil or of conspiracies; it's just about choice and practicality and whether or not a laptop is really a viable alternative to a child than a book.
Question is why they dropped it in the first place? My personal bet is that they wanted to Office on Mac look less business like. That would stop Macs going to enterprises where (as everybody knows) MSFT has a nice profitable stronghold. Considering how many times I've heard people bitch about using iWork and OpenOffice to do any non-trivial office task, I would say Microsoft is no fear of losing the enterprise office market whether it's on Windows or Mac- business is business.
My theory is this: The project lead was probably a Mac person. He likely believed in adherence to the Apple design guide and tight Mac integration. Therefore, he reasoned that Apple users would be using AppleScript. What he didn't consider was that AppleScript is foul and unusable.
(Side note: It's usable but difficult to remember because of its unnecessarily conversational syntax. At MacHack one year, I remember a core Apple developer trying to show off AppleScript features but continuously fogetting how it works because he was mixing it up with English.)
I see nothing but complaints from people on slashdot, but they're just being retarded as usual. If you're running a mac in a mixed office (pretty common), you're going to be wanting your work to be interoperable without needing a lot of the time and effort you'd otherwise put towards *office things*.
Besides, with the number of Windows and Mac converts and those who use both agnostically, chances are that anyone who has cut their teeth on Microsoft Office is quite proficient in VBA- or at least not wanting to port everything the rest of the office uses into another language.
Besides, the level of VBA integration into Microsoft office is likely so tight that the Mac Office redesign completely broke it and it needs to be re-implemented. If my theory about the project lead being a Mac person is right, then they probably considered it a low priority, the same way all the linux and mac fanboys on here do-- you know, because VBA is a sin, and the guy who designs your spreadsheets at work really cares about the various churches and religions of software platforms.
Say what you will about Mono, I think Microsoft's implementation of.NET is actually a pretty strong contender. If you need to solve a problem in Windows really fast, it can be pretty insanely convenient. I think Powershell in Windows Server basically uses a.NET machine for its shell interface. If you ever need Windows machines and Unix machines to talk to eachother, a Mono compatible implementation could be even more convenient than having Python talk to.NET, which isn't too hard to begin with.
You are an idiot. "using the GPL" is not the same as "sign your copyright over to the FSF". Look up and study and understand "dual licensing" and "relicensing" and then try to think a little tiny bit. I know it is difficult but please try. It's not the legal ramifications, it's about keeping up appearances and making sure that Microsoft has more influence over the direction of their licenses and the market than the FSF.
Microsoft doesn't fear the GPL, they simply don't want to associate with. They're better off smothering it with an alternative license that has their name on it, not GNU's. This is the same reason that Microsoft pushed MS-OOXML instead of embracing ODF. ODF belongs to Sun and represents Sun's technology influence, MS-OOXML represents Microsoft's.
Whichever company holds the licenses and the formats has the most influence over the direction that technology goes.
I'm sorry but you are being a making a complete ass of yourself. There are intelligent arguments against the GPL but you are not doing your side any good by being an idiot. Although it may sound like I am being a making a complete ass of myself, I think there's just some missing context here. Although using the GPLv2 would be valid, it still puts them in a position where they are using a GNU license for Microsoft code, which simply doesn't look good to shareholders. It makes Microsoft seem subservient to GNU ideology, which the shareholder are not going to want to see. My example with the GPLv4 is out of context: I think the GPLv3 was a great example of what could happen if the FSF hijacked the license and started working avarice into the mix- it had a special anti-Novell/Microsoft addendum worked into the license itself. It ceased to be an open source license and became a means of limitation.
If they GPL'd code and the license changed in order to try to influence the company's behavior, they would have to either stick with an old GPL or re-license. Sun had the right idea by just controlling their own license from the start with the CDDL. Microsoft is following suit with their own license. When you're a major player in the software world, you have to talk big and act big so the business world will take you seriously.
So WTF is that license for if not for platform lock-in? If there's a.NET program under that license, it can't be used on Mono. Nice. I think it has nothing to do with zealotry, just common sense (and an understanding of the history of Microsoft of course). It's for platform lock-in. That's why they drafted it. However, it provides any technical benefit having the source code might provide- chances are you're not using that Microsoft code in linux, anyway.
Really, boycotting the olympics is one thing- it's not hard to do, I've unintentionally been doing it my whole life- but if you are somehow able to stop buying products from China, then you win.
When you recommend denying the Chinese an international forum in the order of the olypmics, I consider that isolation. Shutting their ideas out of the international sphere is isolating them.
I'm not a Chinese nationalist, I just find the issue of tibet to be trendy, fickle, and useless. I will gladly agree to disagree when it comes to this flavor of the week position.
Attack as in confront. Reform is a slow process and the olympics are a step forward, not a step back. Isolation may have been the Bush administration's mantra for stopping "evil", but I rather think embrace and extend works a lot better.
How is OSS not religious? What else drives people to work for free on it?
Capitalism is when people trade goods and services for money (or other goods and services). Goods like intellectual property. We have a fairly free market in place. Restricting the sale of software would not be a free market. That would be a restricted market. Under capitalism, you can sell ideas. You can sell anything. That's why we call the free market "the free market".
The only reason OSS undercuts closed source software is because it relies on free labor driven by a software cult. People work for free on OSS or for very little money because they believe in a greater good. That would make it religious.
Once more, OSS is not better until it beats out closed source software- which it is nowhere near doing. It needs to *win* before it *wins*. Just because it isn't fair, or isn't right or is abstractly better for some reason doesn't mean anything. What matters is what is in use, what works, and what has made the most money. Microsoft is on top, thus their market strategy is good.
All this aside, the primary point here is that Microsoft is applying the open source business model where applicable but keeping the FSF outside of a position where they can influence their model. This is fine because they have more power, talent, and money than the FSF. You don't employ a license written by an organization that's out to destroy you and you don't give away something that's more profitable sold.
Now, as far as I care, I don't have any interest in converting you. I am not part of some inquisition. As far as I can tell, you're religious about OSS and I'm agnostic. Thus I could care less how many ad hominem attacks you drop or how many taglines about OSS being the truest form of capitalism you can muster. I'm arguing with a brick wall and I've already made my point at the top of the thread- you can just keep thinking that Microsoft will crumble or fold any day now due to good will alone whereas I'll keep thinking that nothing but hard work and money will defeat Microsoft on the market.
Where did I advocate for 'policing' this situation? All I said was that the World doesn't owe China a free ride. Personally I won't be watching the Olympics and I'm considering trying to setup a boycott of any company that sponsors them. I see a bit of a difference between 'policing' and refusing to do business with companies that are profiting from the Olympics. I see a bit of a difference between 'policing' and refusing to attend the opening ceremonies. Well I think Tibet is better off as part of China. I don't believe in feudalism nor theocracy- and I recognize that the nation is too impoverished to develop without China's support. Freedom and democracy do not always yield the best humanitarian results. Americans can complain all they want- they're allowed to. Chinese people probably cannot- and that's their problem until they right it. China doesn't export its human rights violations like we do with our little foray into Iraq- and for that reason it's a waste of time and trade potential to attack them over it.
Here's an idea, if you don't like people tearing apart your weak and illogical arguments and pointing out your incorrect facts, you could inform yourself and start using logic. Incorrect facts? Well, Captain of the debate team, here I thought my post was editorial. I preface what I say with "i think" and "I feel". It's not like I hate open source or anything, I just don't like it when software becomes religious. In my opinion, I should be able to say that something works or does not work without some ass harping on me about what is free and not free. It's free if I don't pay money for it.
And I'm tired of free software advocates' make-believe capitalism. It's capitalism if they're making the most money. Microsoft spends the most and makes the most. Capitalist? Yep. If capitalism were in play in free software, Linus would have been replaced by someone who's more qualified (working on the kernel, but not the lead) and Stallman would be fired for not doing anything.
As far as I'm concerned, the linux kernel and much of free software works like the slashdot meta-moderation: it's a goddamn popularity contest. I think it's more cult developed than community developed.
Do you not see the ridiculous contradictions in your own statements? "Nothing justifies Imperialism", yet you've devoted many of your statements to justifying it! You bemoan "American fascist economic policies" while condoning and justifying cultural imperialism on the part of China. Pot, kettle, black. I'm sorry I don't see any contradiction. I never said imperialism was right. I am merely implying that the US does not have hold over what is right and wrong- we are not the bastion nor vanguards of freedom. We don't release imperialist holdings because we're good people, we do it because they're expensive to maintain. The United States DOES NOT police the world.
I am merely stating that we have no right to mess with Tibet. It's not our country, there's no genocide, there's only standard Chinese political oppression. If we were to turn on China, we would have to start making things again in the United States. Nobody wants that!
There are far worse human right scenarios than Tibet in the world, realistically, especially those that are caused by negligence. People in Africa starve while our American "green" movement pushes for the use of food-market-collapsing biofuels. Just because I am liberal doesn't mean I have to go front with the world's industrial power-house. People NEED food, people SHOULD HAVE education, and political freedoms can come when China's gained more middle class citizens who care about this. Let China reform on its own- because it will. The people will clamor against us in nationalist movements if they see reform occurring due to US pressure.
I simply don't believe we can just bully China into "freedom". What they're doing in Tibet does not justify US action, period.
So can we invade Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia is practically a 'nation of slaves' -- particularly for those without a Y chromosome. What about all the rural poor in China? How are they much better off than 'serfs'? Can we invade them too? Nothing justifies Imperialism. It's all a game of taking resources and figuring out when it's cheaper not to conquer. Imperialism is the reason that we have first world and third world countries. Like I'm sure the US and Europe gained all their power using naturally aspirated internal structuring- but they did not. We make gains by taking the potential of others.
Let's compare this to Hawaii. I would say that's a much better comparison since Tibet is not just a protectorate- here's a part of the country where the natives have been pushed down to ceremonial status, the resistance was met with military strife, and there is no voting out.
Tibet is not an economically-justified holding. It started out as a logistical military holding and it's turned into a point of pride. China has invested so much infrastructure in Tibet that it would be ludicrous to pull out and reinstall their God-King.
And no, we can't invade China or Saudi Arabia because they're our allies. It would be expensive and economically disastrous. China invaded a no-name forbidden kingdom in the mountains and actually improved their quality of life while gaining no goods or services really from their holding. From an imperialist standpoint, it's silly. But realistically, it's none of our business. Their conquests are theirs and ours are ours.
Oh, it's a religious argument. Basically, you just continuously talked up the GPL, called all my quotes inflammatory and hypothetical, and then talked down the MS-RL. It's all very redundant. I just read an article by an OSS zealot and now I have one responding to my comment. Wonderful.
Suddenly it's no longer "you need the source code to make use of the product" but it's evolved into "I deleted the wifi firmware on my laptop because it wasn't free. Now I use a wire."
That's a paraphrase of Stallman in reference to his OLPC. It represents when your feelings on software go from being business oriented to religious. The FSF in a Pythagorean cult.
The primary point is that these licenses don't allow for capitalism to take their course- in reality, open source software vs. closed source is a fair fight. Microsoft can not hinder the market because if a superior product existed, it would win. That's why silverlight can't be flash, or XPS can't beat PDF, or Expression can't beat Illustrator. This is why Apple gains market share. This is why Red Hat servers are becoming more and more common.
In general, Free Software needs to win before it wins- we can't just convert the closed source model into free software and then call it a victory- that's a pipe dream, it won't help competition, it will just remove Microsoft from the picture.
I would argue that Microsoft's dominance is currently driving innovation in the open source sphere. Without it, Sun and IBM and Novell would have no reason to sink money into free products. Canonical would not spend money mailing you Ubuntu. It's what's making the linux desktop. Without Microsoft and Apple dominating, we would be stagnating in Unix limbo, as we did before the desktop boom.
If you think that the FSF is not just arbitrarily anti-Microsoft, then you are illiterate. I'm yet to hear this kind of decry against Adobe or Corel or Oracle.
This is all an argument against the innovation of open source. Simply cutting Microsoft out of the picture or swallowing their technologies is the easiest way for Open Source developers to compete, but the reality remains that competing with Microsoft and Apple will take time, money, and resources- and that's capitalism in a nutshell.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: what we call PC today used to be called the IBM PC, which was IBM's response to the hugely successful Apple II (the first mass produced personal computer), and which came with the 86-DOS operating system created by Seattle Computer Products and purchased by Microsoft.
QDOS bore little resemblance to the DOS that Microsoft released. If you choose to pick out the GNU userland as a point of innovation (i can't disagree more, it's just a relicensed clone of existing unix tools), it's good to point out that Microsoft offered a software stack to go on top of that OS in the same way GNU utilities were used on top of linux. The author of QDOS has himself made the claim that MS-DOS 2.0 shared no common code with QDOS except for the line editor. When Microsoft purchased QDOS, they also purchased its author as a contractor and eventual employee- it was a solid business move to compete with CP/M.
My argument is that Microsoft kept pushing for aggressive undercutting of a rather expensive computer industry, putting true application development tools and a simplistic OS in the hands of users. Microsoft brought a lot of things together- they offered Windows, a graphical OS that ran on hardware a quarter the price of Apple's competition (and ridiculously cheaper and faster than unix-based alternatives)
Do you really think there would have been any standardization without things like the PCI specification or would the computing industry still be like the game console world if Microsoft had not dominated by offering software for a specification as opposed to software for specific hardware?
We owe it to Dell and Compaq for following those specifications, sure- but I do believe Microsoft has been the maintainer of the various PC specifications since the beginning.
However, without Microsoft software, we would have never seen the price of computing dive into regular joe range. The FSF didn't accomplish anything noteworthy without Linus' blind and aggressive campaign to write a great kernel for some strange reason.
I don't believe BSD would have ever become Linux had the Linux movement not existed. As far as I remember, the free software movement that Linux is a part of actually came from DOS hackers. That's what gives Linux its feel- it's a 386 unix, not a unix for 386. In other words, it's not about unix, it's about the PC- and the PC begins with Microsoft.
RMS is simply unable to look at the reality of the PC revolution and how it affected the open source world. Microsoft helped drop these cheap little computers into peoples' laps and stick them on the internet. The universities were never going to create anything usable without all those dedicated DOS hackers. The world without Microsoft and Linux is a world of extremely expensive corporate unices and obscure free software projects furnished like plan9. Without the drive towards accessibility, perhaps Apple would have been our Microsoft and Amiga our Apple? Without Microsoft undercutting the computing industry for years, perhaps the free software movement would never have any target to aim for.
Even Firefox comes from Mozilla which comes from Netscape which was quite popular on Windows. When you remember that hatred of Windows ME and IE 5-6 has driven so many developers to work on alternatives, doesn't it seem unlikely that a software counter-culture like F/OSS would ever be at its strength without a culture to counter?
You see, there's this thing called economics. Third world countries often find themselves in a situation where they're bombarded by vendors who know how sell to a third world government- because they don't have the economic clout to throw their weight around. An open source scion does not arrive in a taxi cab and convert the government- a big corporation treats a warlord to a nice dinner and tells him how their product will make his country strong and respected. If it weren't Microsoft (it isn't Microsoft all the time anyway), it would be IBM (remember, the old Microsoft), Sun, or some other tech vendor.
Internet Explorer is more of a utility and is generally presented as such. If you think Microsoft, with its coffers of gold, is unable to create a wild buzzed-up marketing campaign for IE that competes with Firefox's you're wrong. Firefox is a marketing behemoth while IE's footprint is rather subdued. For this reason, IE will generally get more Automatic Update customers than technology enthusiasts or web enthusiasts who will be using Firefox. To think that many web and blog sites' viewers are not web enthusiasts would be simply naive. Imagine what the web stats would like on samsclub.com, walmart.com, or maybe even amazon.com.
Microsoft needs to have IE because it underlines the Microsoft platform as an Internet platform- if they were to concede the browser market, little would separate the usage scenario between Microsoft Windows and Ubuntu Linux for most modern (especially younger) users. I think Microsoft seeks to deliver a platform rather than just an operating system and the web is an integral part of that.
Otherwise, as long as most open source projects like OpenOffice and Firefox still run in Windows (and they run well in Windows), it will continue to be a thorn in Microsoft's side but not fatal. I think Sun invests very heavily in these cross-platform open source projects because they realize that if enough Windows users start using something cross-platform... well... they might just not see why they're needing to buy Windows anymore.
And that's the real game as I see it.
If Debian with its IceWeasel BS is not free enough for you then you have problems. gNewSense also suffers from a badCase of camelCase.
If nothing else, I think gNewSense is probably a good barometer for what the open source movement is actually contributing. Then again one might see it as a massive waste of time. As far as I'm concerned, the first package I installed in my system is and always will be *ubuntu-restricted-extras. Canonical made huge strides by dumping their debian-esque ways of the past and embracing the common users' desire for functionality. The reason I use linux is so that my software usage is not really bound by any rules or laws other than the that of the masses. If people want it to work a certain way- it often does. This seems to me like it's more restrictive than commercial software that I can do whatever I damn well please with, ethics be damned. Linux does what I want how I want it- we should keep it that way. Free is still free as in costs no money and that's what users really care about.
I would recommend this as a great alternative for anyone who doesn't use their computer as a computer so much as an urn for hacked, broken, reverse-engineered drivers.
That's ironic that you chose that statement. The parent was not the most well thought out post, but you picked a point there that's completely accurate. Yes, organization and resource allocation largely separates the Western World from places like Somalia. Sure, we have a larger amount of resources, but Somalia's resources are not efficiently used because of a general lack of central organization and competent planning.
Well said. It's well known that Linux, Mac, or Windows can be quickly hacked with physical access. In defense, government, and security scenarios physical access to any Windows, Linux, or Mac workstation has to be restricted and technically have armed guards at all times if no other security is available.
However, high security boxes are not supposed to have any of these important files stored locally anyway- they use network accounts which are not stored on the box. Therefore, you would need physical access to the server. For this reason and more, computer security has always worked this way.
Whoah! You managed to discredit yourself in the first line. Anarcho-capitalism? Has that ever existed outside of comic books and movies and places like Sierra Leone? Does this mean that you watch movies like Mad Max and Waterworld to get your political ideology?
Wait- I've got to go to the store to pick up supplies- I better strap on my six shooter and bring toll money for the bridge across the creek.
The answer to all your problems is to move to trouble-regions in Africa or deep rural South America, where laws and government intervention don't exist.
The abstract solution to intellectual property in the political system that you believe in involves belonging to some sort of clan or gang or threatening someone with a gun or explosive. It is not possible to have enforced intellectual property rights in anarcho-capitalism without targeting peoples' lives, food supplies, or shelter through the use of force or exile. I would recommend looking into the way theft was dealt with during the dark ages. Of course, under anarcho-capitalism you could always just bribe the "cop" or tribal enforcer with some gold or perhaps a loaf of bread if they might come after you for stealing someone's "intellectual propery".
It might sound like "LYNCH HIM, HE STOLE MAH IDEAS."
Of course, if we should take such an economic turn, we will be a Russian, British, or Chinese protectorate so fast that we won't even need to worry about solving this problem. Cheers! TWO COME IN ONE COMES OUT!
Right, well, there's definitely some validity to something that can be all your textbooks and more. In the OLPC context, this product has generated a lot more developer interest than other brands of important academic involvement.
While we're on the solution train, let's talk about a realistic solution that is transparent to this issue.
Portability is a big issue, and as such we need something that goes beyond all issues of platform: pure content. More often than not, the wiki approach to free textbooks provides decent information presented in a subject-locked format, as people more or less like to contribute that which they are specialized in. As anyone with an education background can tell you, lesson plans are intricate. The best option would be a series of Creative Commons licensed textbooks that are basically labeled as 1st grade, 2nd grade, etc. with all included core subjects. These should represent the basic requirements of primary education. This core unified textbook should include a teacher's edition and a model lesson plan. Under a creative commons model, they are free to be translated or censored by a government which would otherwise restrict education to protect itself. These should be available in three formats: a text only format, a format where all images and diagrams are represented as black and white line art (for cheap black and white printing), and a full color format. This will provide maximum portabiliy between the digital and paper format, allowing greater freedom to the nations in order to apply solutions.
Whether an idea like this is read in an XO or on paper should be completely transparent, but one thing is certain: this is larger than just free software. I disagree wholeheartedly with the belief that this project should be restricted to the free software platform, as education should be able to cross idealistic bounds to better garner talent, usability, and to serve the students and governments which employ it. If Microsoft wishes to donate their expertise to this matter, they should be welcomed.
It's a well known fact that code will always resemble the institution that produced it, to some extent. To describe the Microsoft code as "poorly structured" is likely a bit out of touch.
The absolutely best kernel code is generally extremely beautiful and descriptive when dealing with the system's abstracts (with nice, long descriptive names for each function) and then unbelievably hellish and ugly in the sections that deal with hardware. Kernels represent an intersection between the idealistic system code and the hideously complex and inhuman machine interaction code. For this reason, we gauge the value of the systems based on how cleanly they compile into assembly, their performance, and ideally how well they do what they were written to do.
Kernel code fills such a complex role in the computer science paradigm that it is likely impossible to gauge the value or quality of any of them through any sort of automated means. What we have here is a mess of a research paper that comes to no obvious conclusions because they didn't really discover anything. If it were of any value, its final summary and conclusions wouldn't be so obfuscated. The researcher may or may not have mastered the art of understanding the zeitgeist of kernels but he certainly hasn't mastered the research paper.
I've always found the XO to be a lot more useful for self-congratulation than actual education. It was a fun feel good project for everyone, but it ultimately ended up being a Redhat venture. Here we think of Redhat as a 'good guy' company and Microsoft as a 'bad guy' company, so we dismiss the fact that this project is monetized from the start.
If I were involved in third world education, I would not waste time or money on this OLPC project. Dvorak (i believe) once called this an American solution to an international problem. The reality of the matter is that a third world school needs only a handful of computers (if even) if they want to teach students about computing and a whole hell of a lot of text books, decent teachers, and paper and writing utensils for its students. If we were really interested in the welfare of these places, we'd have intensive programs to bring African college students to America to train them on engineering, infrastructure, and education. I'm sure this happens to some extent, but the reality remains that Africa is the world's dartboard for idealistic half-solutions to very real problems.
Arrange for a massive meeting of third world leaders to have a burned out hippy explain to them why they should not embrace business and money? You're implying involving Stallman in a major world consortium on anything other than maintaining emacs?
You fail this thought experiment. I said "let's pretend we're not idiots for a second" and here I've got one idiotic comment.
So why would I respect Gates more than Stallman? This is really quite simple. Gates is a self-made wealthy man who donates billions to philanthropist activities. Stallman is just some former hippy who talks a lot about an American software counterculture movement. Stallman disabled the wifi module on his XO Laptop because it wasn't free. If I lived in a place where we had very little, I think I'd be more interested in functionality than ideals. In Africa, people make use of garbage technology like windmills from bicycles and such, they do not patent these things and they pay not attention to the license or patent of what they're working with. They simply can't afford to. Licensing crimes are only an issue in nations that can actually afford licenses in the first place. It all comes down to Maslow's hierarchy. People on slashdot want to make the third world into an idealist software world the same way missionaries want to make it into an idealist Christian world. In reality, they will embrace any of these ideals if it means getting their hands on more money and food and medicine for their growing population. However, if someone offers just a little bit more to them- like in the case of a working Windows which can be used to train technology professionals instead of the completely lame and useless Sugar, which only applies to young children who will never use real computers- they might just take it on account of what's more useful.
Most students just use the XO to look at porn anyway. If I were a third world leader, I would be more interested in buying a printing press and set of modern books so I can just create bootleg textbooks for my nation with the money you spend on that little toy.
Do you guys really think this whole thing is some goofy conspiracy? Come on. Let's put this into context:
I am a third world leader. A company is trying to sell me educational laptops for about half the price of regular laptops. I ask about why we are using laptops instead of getting old text books. They say that they will provide a technology education for students as well, so they can compete in the world market. But wait. Computers in the US don't run like this. If this isn't good enough for the American students, why are you selling it to me? Are you implying that our students can't use the same tools as Americans? Why are you selling me a product built completely out of free software. Since I am a third world leader, I likely find the idea of free software to mean it's of lesser or commodity value. I think it is an issue of pride. Why, American computers run Windows. If we want to compete with them, our children need to know how to use Windows, as well.
I think it makes sense if you assume that the people in third world countries might want their populace to be computer literate to attract jobs, not just so that their students master the art of using some goofy inapplicable children's interface that has no relation to regular computers built on the high minded ideals of Richard Stallman.
If I were a third world leader, I would likely respect Bill Gates a lot more than Richard Stallman. Think about it. The poor dream of being rich, successful, equal- not alternative, counterculture. The counterculture is a luxury of the wealthy. These people likely don't see the same infinite potential in open source so much as they see themselves receiving something which is valueless as it comes at no cost. Realize for a second that people in the third world will not share the same sense of blind religious idealism about this as American and European IT professionals and college students.
For this reason, Negroponte is able to push more OLPC's in more nations which might otherwise go for a competing solution that runs Windows, or something very similar. For this reason, both Microsoft and Negroponte's goals are reached- and the OLPC still ships with a linux system that the students can use if preferred.
It makes a lot more sense when you imagine that there are people out there who don't quite *get* the whole free software religion. There are quite a few, believe it or not.
If you think that the whole point of this project was to shove free software down the throats of every single child in the world, then you probably don't really care about the educational value of this: children's curriculum will revolve around much more than software, anyway. Most will never look at nor care about the source code but rather the math and science and language tools. Perhaps what you really care about is pushing your beliefs on those who can not afford to accept otherwise. This is not question of good vs. evil or of conspiracies; it's just about choice and practicality and whether or not a laptop is really a viable alternative to a child than a book.
My personal bet is that they wanted to Office on Mac look less business like. That would stop Macs going to enterprises where (as everybody knows) MSFT has a nice profitable stronghold. Considering how many times I've heard people bitch about using iWork and OpenOffice to do any non-trivial office task, I would say Microsoft is no fear of losing the enterprise office market whether it's on Windows or Mac- business is business.
My theory is this: The project lead was probably a Mac person. He likely believed in adherence to the Apple design guide and tight Mac integration. Therefore, he reasoned that Apple users would be using AppleScript. What he didn't consider was that AppleScript is foul and unusable.
(Side note: It's usable but difficult to remember because of its unnecessarily conversational syntax. At MacHack one year, I remember a core Apple developer trying to show off AppleScript features but continuously fogetting how it works because he was mixing it up with English.)
I see nothing but complaints from people on slashdot, but they're just being retarded as usual. If you're running a mac in a mixed office (pretty common), you're going to be wanting your work to be interoperable without needing a lot of the time and effort you'd otherwise put towards *office things*.
Besides, with the number of Windows and Mac converts and those who use both agnostically, chances are that anyone who has cut their teeth on Microsoft Office is quite proficient in VBA- or at least not wanting to port everything the rest of the office uses into another language.
Besides, the level of VBA integration into Microsoft office is likely so tight that the Mac Office redesign completely broke it and it needs to be re-implemented. If my theory about the project lead being a Mac person is right, then they probably considered it a low priority, the same way all the linux and mac fanboys on here do-- you know, because VBA is a sin, and the guy who designs your spreadsheets at work really cares about the various churches and religions of software platforms.
Say what you will about Mono, I think Microsoft's implementation of .NET is actually a pretty strong contender. If you need to solve a problem in Windows really fast, it can be pretty insanely convenient. I think Powershell in Windows Server basically uses a .NET machine for its shell interface. If you ever need Windows machines and Unix machines to talk to eachother, a Mono compatible implementation could be even more convenient than having Python talk to .NET, which isn't too hard to begin with.
Microsoft doesn't fear the GPL, they simply don't want to associate with. They're better off smothering it with an alternative license that has their name on it, not GNU's. This is the same reason that Microsoft pushed MS-OOXML instead of embracing ODF. ODF belongs to Sun and represents Sun's technology influence, MS-OOXML represents Microsoft's.
Whichever company holds the licenses and the formats has the most influence over the direction that technology goes.
If they GPL'd code and the license changed in order to try to influence the company's behavior, they would have to either stick with an old GPL or re-license. Sun had the right idea by just controlling their own license from the start with the CDDL. Microsoft is following suit with their own license. When you're a major player in the software world, you have to talk big and act big so the business world will take you seriously.
Really, boycotting the olympics is one thing- it's not hard to do, I've unintentionally been doing it my whole life- but if you are somehow able to stop buying products from China, then you win.
When you recommend denying the Chinese an international forum in the order of the olypmics, I consider that isolation. Shutting their ideas out of the international sphere is isolating them.
I'm not a Chinese nationalist, I just find the issue of tibet to be trendy, fickle, and useless. I will gladly agree to disagree when it comes to this flavor of the week position.
Attack as in confront. Reform is a slow process and the olympics are a step forward, not a step back. Isolation may have been the Bush administration's mantra for stopping "evil", but I rather think embrace and extend works a lot better.
How is OSS not religious? What else drives people to work for free on it?
Capitalism is when people trade goods and services for money (or other goods and services). Goods like intellectual property. We have a fairly free market in place. Restricting the sale of software would not be a free market. That would be a restricted market. Under capitalism, you can sell ideas. You can sell anything. That's why we call the free market "the free market".
The only reason OSS undercuts closed source software is because it relies on free labor driven by a software cult. People work for free on OSS or for very little money because they believe in a greater good. That would make it religious.
Once more, OSS is not better until it beats out closed source software- which it is nowhere near doing. It needs to *win* before it *wins*. Just because it isn't fair, or isn't right or is abstractly better for some reason doesn't mean anything. What matters is what is in use, what works, and what has made the most money. Microsoft is on top, thus their market strategy is good.
All this aside, the primary point here is that Microsoft is applying the open source business model where applicable but keeping the FSF outside of a position where they can influence their model. This is fine because they have more power, talent, and money than the FSF. You don't employ a license written by an organization that's out to destroy you and you don't give away something that's more profitable sold.
Now, as far as I care, I don't have any interest in converting you. I am not part of some inquisition. As far as I can tell, you're religious about OSS and I'm agnostic. Thus I could care less how many ad hominem attacks you drop or how many taglines about OSS being the truest form of capitalism you can muster. I'm arguing with a brick wall and I've already made my point at the top of the thread- you can just keep thinking that Microsoft will crumble or fold any day now due to good will alone whereas I'll keep thinking that nothing but hard work and money will defeat Microsoft on the market.
And I'm tired of free software advocates' make-believe capitalism. It's capitalism if they're making the most money. Microsoft spends the most and makes the most. Capitalist? Yep. If capitalism were in play in free software, Linus would have been replaced by someone who's more qualified (working on the kernel, but not the lead) and Stallman would be fired for not doing anything.
As far as I'm concerned, the linux kernel and much of free software works like the slashdot meta-moderation: it's a goddamn popularity contest. I think it's more cult developed than community developed.
I am merely stating that we have no right to mess with Tibet. It's not our country, there's no genocide, there's only standard Chinese political oppression. If we were to turn on China, we would have to start making things again in the United States. Nobody wants that!
There are far worse human right scenarios than Tibet in the world, realistically, especially those that are caused by negligence. People in Africa starve while our American "green" movement pushes for the use of food-market-collapsing biofuels. Just because I am liberal doesn't mean I have to go front with the world's industrial power-house. People NEED food, people SHOULD HAVE education, and political freedoms can come when China's gained more middle class citizens who care about this. Let China reform on its own- because it will. The people will clamor against us in nationalist movements if they see reform occurring due to US pressure.
I simply don't believe we can just bully China into "freedom". What they're doing in Tibet does not justify US action, period.
Let's compare this to Hawaii. I would say that's a much better comparison since Tibet is not just a protectorate- here's a part of the country where the natives have been pushed down to ceremonial status, the resistance was met with military strife, and there is no voting out.
Tibet is not an economically-justified holding. It started out as a logistical military holding and it's turned into a point of pride. China has invested so much infrastructure in Tibet that it would be ludicrous to pull out and reinstall their God-King.
And no, we can't invade China or Saudi Arabia because they're our allies. It would be expensive and economically disastrous. China invaded a no-name forbidden kingdom in the mountains and actually improved their quality of life while gaining no goods or services really from their holding. From an imperialist standpoint, it's silly. But realistically, it's none of our business. Their conquests are theirs and ours are ours.
Find and replace:
OSS with Scientology
Stallman with L Ron Hubbard
Free Software with Religious Technology
Oh, it's a religious argument. Basically, you just continuously talked up the GPL, called all my quotes inflammatory and hypothetical, and then talked down the MS-RL. It's all very redundant. I just read an article by an OSS zealot and now I have one responding to my comment. Wonderful. Suddenly it's no longer "you need the source code to make use of the product" but it's evolved into "I deleted the wifi firmware on my laptop because it wasn't free. Now I use a wire." That's a paraphrase of Stallman in reference to his OLPC. It represents when your feelings on software go from being business oriented to religious. The FSF in a Pythagorean cult.
The primary point is that these licenses don't allow for capitalism to take their course- in reality, open source software vs. closed source is a fair fight. Microsoft can not hinder the market because if a superior product existed, it would win. That's why silverlight can't be flash, or XPS can't beat PDF, or Expression can't beat Illustrator. This is why Apple gains market share. This is why Red Hat servers are becoming more and more common.
In general, Free Software needs to win before it wins- we can't just convert the closed source model into free software and then call it a victory- that's a pipe dream, it won't help competition, it will just remove Microsoft from the picture.
I would argue that Microsoft's dominance is currently driving innovation in the open source sphere. Without it, Sun and IBM and Novell would have no reason to sink money into free products. Canonical would not spend money mailing you Ubuntu. It's what's making the linux desktop. Without Microsoft and Apple dominating, we would be stagnating in Unix limbo, as we did before the desktop boom.
If you think that the FSF is not just arbitrarily anti-Microsoft, then you are illiterate. I'm yet to hear this kind of decry against Adobe or Corel or Oracle.
This is all an argument against the innovation of open source. Simply cutting Microsoft out of the picture or swallowing their technologies is the easiest way for Open Source developers to compete, but the reality remains that competing with Microsoft and Apple will take time, money, and resources- and that's capitalism in a nutshell.