You sound like a very reasonable and practical person. Tell me this: if it came to light that a company whose products you typically relied upon was in fact determined to be guilty of a crime, would you stop patronizing that company? What about if the crime directly involved the use of their products?
Many of us "zealots" believe in NOT supporting criminal behavior. In this case, that means I do not purchase, use or encourage the use of any products of Microsoft Corporation. It has been 6 years and it has not been easy but definitely worth the effort. I sleep pretty well knowing that I haven't contributed to the benefit of the fudlicious Redmond juggernaut in a long time.
Ok. I went back and read the entire article, top to bottom, all the comments and followed links that I thought might reference what you're suggesting. For the THIRD time. The only thing I see IN THIS ARTICLE that implies Microsoft was there "to disrupt things" is a quote from David Sugar:
"When I say intending to disrupt the message, I come to that conclusion on the stated reasons given by Microsoft's own reps on what they intend to say and do at the conference."
I didn't see those stated reasons quoted anywhere in the article or on the egovos.org site. Where are they? I can imagine them saying this, but to keep harping on me for "not reading the article" or "missing the point" is ludicrous. I don't know David Sugar so I can't make any assumptions, good or bad, about his suggestion of insight into Microsoft's goals.
Sure, Microsoft is going to use their slot to pitch Shared Source. If you were invited to a MSDN conference about licensing issues, wouldn't you pitch FS/OS (or whatever your bent is)?!? Given that, people are saying Tony Stanco somehow doing harm to the FS/OS communities. To that I can only say: "Sticks and stones...". I'm not afraid of Microsoft's words, especially at an event where they are completely outnumbered! I still think that their presence would provide a helpful contrast to the bigger picture, nay even a reminder as to why we are gathering at events like this in the first place. I think it was actually pretty clever because it probably made people really analyze what Microsoft says, which in turn means it exposes more of their heinousness.
Now, if the FSF and RMS were kept out due to what RMS says: "I heard that proprietary software forces had put pressure on the event's sponsors to exclude our movement and our views." then, I have a problem with that. But, so far that's hearsay as well.
Sorry, but I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this. I have to be practical about the gap between FS and OSS - it's a philosophical one but a major one, admittedly. Still, if in five years OSS is the predominant industry paradigm instead of proprietary software, I think that's a helluva lot better (and makes for an easier entre) for "software libre" (and the rest of the world) than if things continue as they are. And, I do think that that without the impact of a down economy and some inroads that OSS has made in the last 3 years, FS advocates like us would be getting destroyed by Microsoft, especially given how the current Presidential administration is tacitly approving and encouraging their their string of abusive practices to continue.
First of all, I read the news item pointed to by your link. I resent the implication that I did not and also the stereotyping and prejudice that is the basis for your comment "I realize slashdotters don't click on links unless they go to goatse.cx...". So, on behalf of other "slashdotters", I suggest that you learn how to engage in civil discourse without resorting to childish, insulting innuendo.
Secondly, as I read that Newsforge report, I notice that RMS chose not to participate because he wanted the organizer to distinguish Free from Open Source Software throughout the program of the event. The organizer chose not to, so what? It's his event afterall. That sort of objection by RMS is commonplace (due to the whole rift between RMS and the Open Source crowd) so it doesn't bother me personally. While I believe in Free Software and the FSF, I don't necessarily think that RMS knows best or has the answers to all the questions facing computer software policy-decisions. He also can be an asshole about presenting his message, sadly enough. And guess what? Many other people think similarly. But hey, I still like him and his message better than any other "flavor" out there.
I'm surprised that RMS would mind that Microsoft was to speak at this event, otherwise it would be tantamount to censorship. Based on what I know about RMS, I don't think he's in favor of censorship. So what you're talking about basically are petty politics between personalities and philosophical camps. Let Microsoft talk! They are doing a great job of shooting themselves in the foot with each passing day. This was not a one-sided political rally, so why *wouldn't* you have multiple viewpoints represented?
On a slight tangent...
Remember that Microsoft is not doing anything that we, as a society, do not condone or enable. It's the American Dream baby! So, if you don't like what Microsoft does or says, stop supporting their business. It's simple. I stopped using their products almost 6 years ago now. It's been very inconvenient, especially in my workplace. Even outside of work, I get invited to LAN parties in which I cannot participate fully because I will not run Windows (even a warez version). Freedom always has a price.
I don't think for a minute that Microsoft is evil. I think greed, an insatiable appetite for self-satisfaction and the resultant unethical corporatism that typifies our business practices today are responsible for Microsoft's success. It sure as hell isn't the value in their products or services.
So you're saying that this Anonymous Coward posting was made by RMS? I find that hard to believe.
I am for Free Software, 110%. Yet Tony Stanco, like Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond and a host of others, focus their efforts by promoting Open Source software. I realize the difference, but you know what? Open Source advocacy is opening doors that remain closed to Free Software advocacy.
As a Free Software advocate, I'm going to support those guys all the way. Why? Because they are attacking important issues using a more graceful methodology, one that is working. They are succeeding where we (the FSF and community) have not been able to. I like to think of them as the guys with the battering rams, busting through the castle Gates:-). Once there's enough daylight, the rest of us can get in and do our stuff too.
Do I prefer the Open Source approach over the FSF approach? No.
Am I willing to capitalize on their successes to make strides with Free Software advocacy? You betcha!
I'm trying to encourage the use and principles of Free Software as much as possible, but am practical about it so I often will support OSS folks in the process, particularly if they are knocking down doors that we cannot.
It definitely seems like the DoD groks licensing implications. As to whether or not the note implies "Hey, have fun using this OSS stuff, just be careful..." remains to be seen. Let's hope it is!
Here's his official bio snippet from freedevelopers.net, a group he also founded:
"Tony Stanco is the founder of FreeDevelopers.net, an international `CommunityCompany' for the development of GPL Software with members from over 50 countries. Before starting FreeDevelopers, he was a senior attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Internet and software group, in Washington, DC. He has a LL.M. in securities regulation from Georgetown University Law Center.
Recently Tony was appointed as a Senior Policy Analyst at the Cyberspace Policy Institute, George Washington University."
I don't know Tony aside from what I've read by and about him, but I definitely like him based on that. I believe he brings much needed non-geek perspective to the community when it comes to policy issues and FOSS.
You FUD monkeys will have to do better than this. Who watches the watchers? We do.:-)
When I read this memo, I don't particularly think it's endorsing anything. They basically remind people that "the Linux operating system" is an example of "open source software" released under "restrictive" licensing terms (i.e., the GPL) and that usage of such software is subject to policies and protocols just like any other software used by the DoD. They then make a point of reminding people that if they use OSS software, that they remember the licensing impact because it could have ramifications later (e.g., if they modify any code that is covered by the GPL).
It's almost like they are setting the stage for some intellectual property issues with GNU/Linux. Perhaps I'm being too paranoid given the ripple effect that the whole SCO fiasco is having, but that was my initial reaction to the memo's direction.
Here in Seattle, I've not seen many folks riding them BUT...the City is using them for their public utility folks to cruise around the city to read meters, check mains/lines, etc. I think it's a very eco-friendly and efficient method for that work. Has anyone else seen other local governments/agencies using the Segway for similar purposes?
Well, Steve Oualline is the author of "Practical C Programming" published by O'Reilly. That's a kick ass book, so it's hard to imagine it's the author 100%. Perhaps this one got rushed to press. I've had mixed experiences with New Riders' publications so I'm liable to attribute it to the publishing house.
I think this means we won....
on
Linuxworld Fun
·
· Score: 1
The Gandhi quote comes to mind: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." I think the cycle is complete after yesterday. The Redmond gang has realized it cannot eat/destroy Linux/Free & Open Source Software, so what do they do: switch from predator mode to capitalist mode. "Can't beat them, might as well try to sell our stuff to them."
To top it off, the CEO of Sun is giving the keynote about how great Linux is and how committed Sun is to it. I'm sure the folks at IBM and HP snickered during McNealy's speech.
I think that August 13th, 2002 is an important date for all of us who have been "fighting the good fight", trying to raise awareness and make in-roads into conventional high-tech markets.
Actually, if you need a close integration of *nix/Linux and Netware (remember *that* OS?), Caldera (now United Linux) is pretty dang sweet. I used it in a shop that was mostly Netware at the time and it was quite handy. This was back when the only good free way to authenticate to Novell services was via MARSnwe, which then didn't do anything but bindery authentication service. Caldera could do NDS authentication, which was worth money in our case.
On another topic, is it just me or does anyone else hate the name "United Linux"? Of course, if you collapse the two you get....Unux. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.:-) Gosh I need sleep...
Well, I think blocking a TLD penalizes non-spammers to the point of breaking up the open communication chain of Internet email. Spammers make money from their cruft, otherwise they wouldn't do it; basically, many will use other domains in response to a TLD block and then millions of legitimate email users will be penalized as an side/after-effect. To me, that's letting the spammers win, or in other words, exploit the Internet without regard for the global impact of their actions.
As for the moderation...dude, I couldn't give a rat's ass about "moderation" points. I'm interested in the topic, not some artificial token system. If you are so concerned, I'll make sure I mod you up next time I do meta-moderation.:-)
If you block at the TLD, you prevent basically ANYONE from China (for example, when you block *.cn) from emailing you. That prevents legitimate email from being delivered.
...you basically are letting the spammers win when you close off one of the biggest open communications medium known to human kind. Perhaps I'm overly sentimental about it and goodness knows I'd love to prevent about 80% of the spam I see (that seems to be about the ratio in terms of TLDs involving Asian netblocks) - still, I cannot really bring myself to doing it yet.
Opera and Mozilla both fail, or did so as of last Friday. I tested both. And got a nice page telling me that I should use IE for Windows or MacOS. Funny, I run neither OS.
Haven't checked again. It's too depressing. I'm beginning to think that Microsoft *has* won and that perhaps it's time for me to think about getting out of Microsoftland/IT altogether.Sigh.
Sorry...I missed your point entirely. After re-reading your comment and quotation, I get it now.:-)
Kuhn says the both the motivations *and* philosophies are different, which is accurate. In terms of philosophy, both OSI and FSF/GNU are about software freedom. In terms of motivations, there's a big difference: OSI is about making open source software more attractive to commercial settings, FSF/GNU is about making all software "libre software" (as Kuhn suggests), a good term given the FSF's philosophical underpinnings I think.
I have found myself turned off on more than one occasion by Richard's defense of what "free" means - sometimes I grok his definition, and sometimes I don't (especially since the world is still based on a market economy). Still, I admire him for sticking to his guns in the face of many critics of software freedom. Without the idealism of the FSF, we'd not be where we are today.
But, as we all know: you definitely catch more flies with honey than with vinegar....that, to me, is the essence of OSI.
I think at this point in the evolution of software, both paradigms/perspectives are still needed. Heck, if nothing else, the GPL keeps Microsoft distracted somewhat.:-)
I work for the Cobalt Group. I am a technical staff member. I am relatively satisfied with my work, and think the best part about the place are the people. That includes John, the CEO. The environment is very open and people communicate across many levels without getting their undies in a knot b/c one may not be following "the chain of command." As long as that is the case, I don't really see a reason for a union at our shop - however, I'm not willing to say that unions are unnecessary for the industry as a whole. I have met people who have it much worse, some at other dot-coms and some at prestigious brick-and-mortars. I am extremely grateful for my workplace dynamics when I hear their stories.
Slashdot Mirror
You sound like a very reasonable and practical person. Tell me this: if it came to light that a company whose products you typically relied upon was in fact determined to be guilty of a crime, would you stop patronizing that company? What about if the crime directly involved the use of their products?
Many of us "zealots" believe in NOT supporting criminal behavior. In this case, that means I do not purchase, use or encourage the use of any products of Microsoft Corporation. It has been 6 years and it has not been easy but definitely worth the effort. I sleep pretty well knowing that I haven't contributed to the benefit of the fudlicious Redmond juggernaut in a long time.
The world's fastest computer is already owned by the Japanese government, and is manufactured by a mature Japanese firm. :-)
Ok. I went back and read the entire article, top to bottom, all the comments and followed links that I thought might reference what you're suggesting. For the THIRD time. The only thing I see IN THIS ARTICLE that implies Microsoft was there "to disrupt things" is a quote from David Sugar:
"When I say intending to disrupt the message, I come to that conclusion on the stated reasons given by Microsoft's own reps on what they intend to say and do at the conference."
I didn't see those stated reasons quoted anywhere in the article or on the egovos.org site. Where are they? I can imagine them saying this, but to keep harping on me for "not reading the article" or "missing the point" is ludicrous. I don't know David Sugar so I can't make any assumptions, good or bad, about his suggestion of insight into Microsoft's goals.
Sure, Microsoft is going to use their slot to pitch Shared Source. If you were invited to a MSDN conference about licensing issues, wouldn't you pitch FS/OS (or whatever your bent is)?!? Given that, people are saying Tony Stanco somehow doing harm to the FS/OS communities. To that I can only say: "Sticks and stones...". I'm not afraid of Microsoft's words, especially at an event where they are completely outnumbered! I still think that their presence would provide a helpful contrast to the bigger picture, nay even a reminder as to why we are gathering at events like this in the first place. I think it was actually pretty clever because it probably made people really analyze what Microsoft says, which in turn means it exposes more of their heinousness.
Now, if the FSF and RMS were kept out due to what RMS says: "I heard that proprietary software forces had put pressure on the event's sponsors to exclude our movement and our views." then, I have a problem with that. But, so far that's hearsay as well.
Sorry, but I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this. I have to be practical about the gap between FS and OSS - it's a philosophical one but a major one, admittedly. Still, if in five years OSS is the predominant industry paradigm instead of proprietary software, I think that's a helluva lot better (and makes for an easier entre) for "software libre" (and the rest of the world) than if things continue as they are. And, I do think that that without the impact of a down economy and some inroads that OSS has made in the last 3 years, FS advocates like us would be getting destroyed by Microsoft, especially given how the current Presidential administration is tacitly approving and encouraging their their string of abusive practices to continue.
Peace,
First of all, I read the news item pointed to by your link. I resent the implication that I did not and also the stereotyping and prejudice that is the basis for your comment "I realize slashdotters don't click on links unless they go to goatse.cx...". So, on behalf of other "slashdotters", I suggest that you learn how to engage in civil discourse without resorting to childish, insulting innuendo.
Secondly, as I read that Newsforge report, I notice that RMS chose not to participate because he wanted the organizer to distinguish Free from Open Source Software throughout the program of the event. The organizer chose not to, so what? It's his event afterall. That sort of objection by RMS is commonplace (due to the whole rift between RMS and the Open Source crowd) so it doesn't bother me personally. While I believe in Free Software and the FSF, I don't necessarily think that RMS knows best or has the answers to all the questions facing computer software policy-decisions. He also can be an asshole about presenting his message, sadly enough. And guess what? Many other people think similarly. But hey, I still like him and his message better than any other "flavor" out there.
I'm surprised that RMS would mind that Microsoft was to speak at this event, otherwise it would be tantamount to censorship. Based on what I know about RMS, I don't think he's in favor of censorship. So what you're talking about basically are petty politics between personalities and philosophical camps. Let Microsoft talk! They are doing a great job of shooting themselves in the foot with each passing day. This was not a one-sided political rally, so why *wouldn't* you have multiple viewpoints represented?
On a slight tangent...
Remember that Microsoft is not doing anything that we, as a society, do not condone or enable. It's the American Dream baby! So, if you don't like what Microsoft does or says, stop supporting their business. It's simple. I stopped using their products almost 6 years ago now. It's been very inconvenient, especially in my workplace. Even outside of work, I get invited to LAN parties in which I cannot participate fully because I will not run Windows (even a warez version). Freedom always has a price.
I don't think for a minute that Microsoft is evil. I think greed, an insatiable appetite for self-satisfaction and the resultant unethical corporatism that typifies our business practices today are responsible for Microsoft's success. It sure as hell isn't the value in their products or services.
Peace,
So you're saying that this Anonymous Coward posting was made by RMS? I find that hard to believe.
:-). Once there's enough daylight, the rest of us can get in and do our stuff too.
I am for Free Software, 110%. Yet Tony Stanco, like Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond and a host of others, focus their efforts by promoting Open Source software. I realize the difference, but you know what? Open Source advocacy is opening doors that remain closed to Free Software advocacy.
As a Free Software advocate, I'm going to support those guys all the way. Why? Because they are attacking important issues using a more graceful methodology, one that is working. They are succeeding where we (the FSF and community) have not been able to. I like to think of them as the guys with the battering rams, busting through the castle Gates
Do I prefer the Open Source approach over the FSF approach? No.
Am I willing to capitalize on their successes to make strides with Free Software advocacy? You betcha!
I'm trying to encourage the use and principles of Free Software as much as possible, but am practical about it so I often will support OSS folks in the process, particularly if they are knocking down doors that we cannot.
Agreed.
It definitely seems like the DoD groks licensing implications. As to whether or not the note implies "Hey, have fun using this OSS stuff, just be careful..." remains to be seen. Let's hope it is!
Um... no.
bzzzttt
Thanks for playing, here's a lovely parting gift.
Tony Stanco is heavily involved in government & computing issues, most notably the the push of Free and Open Source software. And, he's been pretty succesful at it. I'm guessing that since you are posting this an AC, you may be affiliated with one of the opponents (e.g., Microsoft, BSA) of his efforts.
Here's his official bio snippet from freedevelopers.net, a group he also founded:
"Tony Stanco is the founder of FreeDevelopers.net, an international `CommunityCompany' for the development of GPL Software with members from over 50 countries. Before starting FreeDevelopers, he was a senior attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Internet and software group, in Washington, DC. He has a LL.M. in securities regulation from Georgetown University Law Center.
Recently Tony was appointed as a Senior Policy Analyst at the Cyberspace Policy Institute, George Washington University."
I don't know Tony aside from what I've read by and about him, but I definitely like him based on that. I believe he brings much needed non-geek perspective to the community when it comes to policy issues and FOSS.
You FUD monkeys will have to do better than this. Who watches the watchers? We do. :-)
When I read this memo, I don't particularly think it's endorsing anything. They basically remind people that "the Linux operating system" is an example of "open source software" released under "restrictive" licensing terms (i.e., the GPL) and that usage of such software is subject to policies and protocols just like any other software used by the DoD. They then make a point of reminding people that if they use OSS software, that they remember the licensing impact because it could have ramifications later (e.g., if they modify any code that is covered by the GPL).
It's almost like they are setting the stage for some intellectual property issues with GNU/Linux. Perhaps I'm being too paranoid given the ripple effect that the whole SCO fiasco is having, but that was my initial reaction to the memo's direction.
Here in Seattle, I've not seen many folks riding them BUT...the City is using them for their public utility folks to cruise around the city to read meters, check mains/lines, etc. I think it's a very eco-friendly and efficient method for that work. Has anyone else seen other local governments/agencies using the Segway for similar purposes?
Well, Steve Oualline is the author of "Practical C Programming" published by O'Reilly. That's a kick ass book, so it's hard to imagine it's the author 100%. Perhaps this one got rushed to press. I've had mixed experiences with New Riders' publications so I'm liable to attribute it to the publishing house.
To top it off, the CEO of Sun is giving the keynote about how great Linux is and how committed Sun is to it. I'm sure the folks at IBM and HP snickered during McNealy's speech.
I think that August 13th, 2002 is an important date for all of us who have been "fighting the good fight", trying to raise awareness and make in-roads into conventional high-tech markets.
In a sense, I think we just won.
Actually, if you need a close integration of *nix/Linux and Netware (remember *that* OS?), Caldera (now United Linux) is pretty dang sweet. I used it in a shop that was mostly Netware at the time and it was quite handy. This was back when the only good free way to authenticate to Novell services was via MARSnwe, which then didn't do anything but bindery authentication service. Caldera could do NDS authentication, which was worth money in our case.
:-) Gosh I need sleep...
On another topic, is it just me or does anyone else hate the name "United Linux"? Of course, if you collapse the two you get....Unux. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
Except it's not a secure site for transmitting credit card information. What a bummer.
Well, I think blocking a TLD penalizes non-spammers to the point of breaking up the open communication chain of Internet email. Spammers make money from their cruft, otherwise they wouldn't do it; basically, many will use other domains in response to a TLD block and then millions of legitimate email users will be penalized as an side/after-effect. To me, that's letting the spammers win, or in other words, exploit the Internet without regard for the global impact of their actions.
:-)
As for the moderation...dude, I couldn't give a rat's ass about "moderation" points. I'm interested in the topic, not some artificial token system. If you are so concerned, I'll make sure I mod you up next time I do meta-moderation.
-rc
If you block at the TLD, you prevent basically ANYONE from China (for example, when you block *.cn) from emailing you. That prevents legitimate email from being delivered.
...you basically are letting the spammers win when you close off one of the biggest open communications medium known to human kind. Perhaps I'm overly sentimental about it and goodness knows I'd love to prevent about 80% of the spam I see (that seems to be about the ratio in terms of TLDs involving Asian netblocks) - still, I cannot really bring myself to doing it yet.
Opera and Mozilla both fail, or did so as of last Friday. I tested both. And got a nice page telling me that I should use IE for Windows or MacOS. Funny, I run neither OS.
Haven't checked again. It's too depressing. I'm beginning to think that Microsoft *has* won and that perhaps it's time for me to think about getting out of Microsoftland/IT altogether.Sigh.
-rc
Hey Russ,
Sorry...I missed your point entirely. After re-reading your comment and quotation, I get it now. :-)
Kuhn says the both the motivations *and* philosophies are different, which is accurate. In terms of philosophy, both OSI and FSF/GNU are about software freedom. In terms of motivations, there's a big difference: OSI is about making open source software more attractive to commercial settings, FSF/GNU is about making all software "libre software" (as Kuhn suggests), a good term given the FSF's philosophical underpinnings I think.
I have found myself turned off on more than one occasion by Richard's defense of what "free" means - sometimes I grok his definition, and sometimes I don't (especially since the world is still based on a market economy). Still, I admire him for sticking to his guns in the face of many critics of software freedom. Without the idealism of the FSF, we'd not be where we are today.
But, as we all know: you definitely catch more flies with honey than with vinegar....that, to me, is the essence of OSI.
I think at this point in the evolution of software, both paradigms/perspectives are still needed. Heck, if nothing else, the GPL keeps Microsoft distracted somewhat. :-)
Cheers!
What makes it wrong? These are his beliefs and opinions. I agree more with you Russ, but I don't think you're right and he's wrong.
I work for the Cobalt Group. I am a technical staff member. I am relatively satisfied with my work, and think the best part about the place are the people. That includes John, the CEO. The environment is very open and people communicate across many levels without getting their undies in a knot b/c one may not be following "the chain of command." As long as that is the case, I don't really see a reason for a union at our shop - however, I'm not willing to say that unions are unnecessary for the industry as a whole. I have met people who have it much worse, some at other dot-coms and some at prestigious brick-and-mortars. I am extremely grateful for my workplace dynamics when I hear their stories.