more Open Source myths
8. "Open Source" is the name of a company that competes with Microsoft
Many discussions of open source software posit the existence of some "open source company" somewhere that ought to do this or ought to do that. But there is no such company. There are a bunch of volunteers working on stuff in their spare time. Sometimes they appoint 'team leaders' to move things along, but no one is standing at a podium waving a baton, deciding what "open source" should do.
9. Since most people are not programmers, not even programmers need the source code.
Most discussions of open source software include the canard that your grandmother is probably not a Java guru, and that therefore having source code available to anyone is worthless. Most people are not car mechanics either, but few would buy a car that not even a mechanic could work on.
10. People who do community volunteer work should be restricted or punished.
Microsoft shills masquerading as reasonable people frequently seize on the statements of one Richard Stallman, a Massachusetts university professor who — surprise — is a far-left kookburger, and who has stated that "all software should be free." This is then described by the Microsoft shill as some generally-held philosophy of the "open source movement," as though everyone working in his den on a patch to PHP is some commie moonbeam.
The term "open source" was in fact coined precisely to distance these efforts from Mr. Stallman and his "free software" philosophy.
But never mind that. The real issue is this: when you're done listening to the guy tell you how the world will go to ruin if people give away the stuff they do in their spare time, ask him what he proposes to do about it. Shall we pass a law that people cannot do volunteer work? Shall we prohibit people from disposing of their own property except at a "fair" price ('fair' to be determined by government)? Every time a parent hands down a piece of furniture to a newly-married son or daughter, some furniture store and some furniture manufacturer lose a sale. Shouldn't we ban that? Every time the Jaycees paint a house for an old lady living alone, some union housepainter gets robbed of a job. Should we ban that, too? If not, then why would we restrict or punish programmers who do volunteer stuff and toss it out there for people to use?
11. Straw man arguments are persuasive and useful.
Microsoft shills posing as reasonable people will often spend their own time, and yours, on stupid things that no one sane ever said anyway, like "Open source software is always better than proprietary software." They do this in an attempt to do something equally stupid, which is to argue that propietary software is always better.
12. People programming in their spare time for fun should work on what you want instead of what they want.
People who start with the assumption that Open Source is a company can criticize the company for not producing anything except what the worker-bees decide they want to do. This is then presented as a "deficiency" of open source software, instead of a gripe from one of Ayn Rand's 'looters' that the producers aren't doing the right things.
Open Source is not a company. It doesn't sell anything. There is no one in charge. It's no different than a bunch of musicians who get together to jam. Enjoy it, or walk away. Complaining that you didn't get to pick the songs is stupid.
13. People want their choices restricted.
As any Microsoft shill will tell you, one of the first complaints that immigrants from communist countries made about America was that there were just too many products on the shelves. "Fifty kinds of shampoo! How am I to choose?" And that was before they saw the cereal aisle. This is painted as a Bad Thing, and it is suggested that having a Committee Of Smart People restrict the public's choices down to a reasonable number is a superior system.
These same guys will then paint themselves as capitalists, and have the nerve to call the open-sourcers communists. Meanwhile, the open source guys don't see anything wrong with tossing 50 kinds of shampoo out there and letting the market decide which ones will continue.
14. Microsoft shills are always obvious
The stereotypical Microsoft shill will tell you to put down your crack pipe and go kiss the butts of your commie foreigner friends, but not all of them are like that.
There is a professional side to the Microsoft PR effort which involves hiring think tanks, lobbying firms, industry research houses, and freeleance writers to wear the Cloak Of Objectivity while spewing a list of talking points provided by the Microsoft PR department.
These are generally recognizeable by applying the following two tests.
1. The article spends time debunking at least two ridiculous straw man arguments, such as insisting that if not stopped soon, volunteer hobbyists will put the entire software industry out of business; or that "everyone mistakenly believes" that open source software is always better than some other stuff.
2. The article contains at least two lines of argument, that if followed to their logical conclusion, would result in a totalitarian police state. Arguing that "free software will destroy us all" is basically arguing for the curtailment of the right of ordinary people to make gifts of their handiwork. No more free sweaters knit by granny; the Pendleton Wool Corporation stomped her good. Similarly, arguing that the public would be better served by having committees of Smart People Wearing Suits pre-screening which items may be offered to the marketplace is basically asking for something like the Soviet Union's old Gosplan, the bureau that decided what would be made and in what quantities. When a guy who advocates that calls somebody else a leftist, guard your wallet.
Whoa ... get out the tin foil hats. I think you read a little more into the article than was actually there.
The article contains at least two lines of argument, that if followed to their logical conclusion, would result in a totalitarian police state.
I guess logical to you... Maybe not to everyone else.
The author was not advocating making it illegal / immoral to "give away" your work. As long as the open software crowd stays a small minority of all developers, I do not think it will have a negative effect.
Let me turn the tables on your totalitarian argument. How would you like the government suddenly nationalizing all software licenses and mandating that any and all source code must be made availiable for the public good. All public companies would have 1 month to post their product sources to the internet. Then all of the hackers in their "dens" can improve software to their heart's content. Everyone would be better off, right?
Maybe Bill Gates really is the Antichrist and it is all a plot to control our lives... Those eeevil rich corporations just wanna screw the altruistic s.o.b.'s that want to give away the fruits of their labors. Yeah, that's it. I see the light. Thank you for clearing that up.