Going Overboard on Open Source

ZDNet ^ | 26 August 2002 | John Carroll

[ShadowAce]

These good things, however, in no way justify forcing people to use open source products. I have no problem with companies that choose to use open-source software. I also have no problem with governments that choose it. I have a very big problem with groups that try to force governments to favor open source software exclusively.

[ShadowAce]

Ping as a clarification of what OS "should" be....

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Want on or off? Just holla!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I have a very big problem with groups that try to force governments to favor open source software exclusively.

What about software companies that force PC manufacturers to install their operating systems exclusively on new PCs?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I have a very big problem with groups that try to force governments to favor open source software exclusively.

What about software companies that force PC manufacturers to install their operating systems exclusively on new PCs?

[ShadowAce]

That is one of my biggest gripes.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

What about software companies that force PC manufacturers to install their operating systems exclusively on new PCs?

NO ONE FORCES ANYONE! BOTH SIDES AGREE TO THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT!

[kpp_kpp]

free is the only effective way to fight off a monopoly. open source/free software would not be an issue if there existed a healthy, competitive market for operating systems and desktop applications.

ms likes to complain about "free" but that is exactly how they eliminated netscape as a major player. anyone remember that netscape navigator used to cost $50?

[posterkid]

I have worked on open source projects before.

With that said...

Bills which seek to force governments to use nothing but free software are shortsighted. They ignore the primary benefit of free software, which is the access to source code for those who rely on systems. A better alternative would be to require that government agencies receive source code for any products they use, free or commercial. A commercial institution shouldn't have any qualms about releasing their source to the feds under a license which clearly restricts the use to debugging problems and making in-house enhancements. A license which restricts redistribution of such commercial source would be perfectly fine.

Access to source is what free software gives you, and what users in demanding environments need. This is one place that FSF fans should drop our ideology.

[Dominic Harr]

I'm swamped, don't have time to post this full article as a new thread, but just came across it and thought someone here might find it interesting:

MS to intro product key check in WinXP SP1 WPA

Just FYI.

[HAL9000]

I have a very big problem with groups that try to force governments to favor open source software exclusively.

Yes, that is going overboard.

However, it should be a requirement that the data format used for government documents be openly and fully documented. This would allow the data files to be accessed by other software.

Suppose that a government agency purchased a software package and used it to save a large amount of important data - then the software publisher went out of business. If the data format of the files is documented, it should be possible to convert the data to another format to work with other programs. Otherwise, that data may be irretrievably lost.

[BioForce1]

>99% of all office workers in America who know how to use computers know how to use Microsoft Office Products.

Microsoft Office is the operating system. Windows is just a creature that controls Office applications.

<1% of all office workers know anything about Unix and I doubt that corporate America is going to save any money by sending legions of office clerks out to learn the finer intestacies of awk, sed, grep, cc, gdb, lexx, vi, emacs, sh, csh, bsh, bash,.. Not to mention understanding and appreciating what the latest X-Window manager of the week is all about, or where to find a driver for a three-year-old CD-ROM on the net.

Software costs money, but the people who use the software cost even more money.

Windows has 99% of the mind share of the applications that are important. Microsoft has the best database technology, the only real GUI development technology, and their operating systems run on 95% of all the computers that are currently being manufactured.

The new tool kit called .NET is totally awesome and I see very little chance that the Linux universe is going to create anything to match it.

The human race probably needs only a couple of operating system. The race is already over and while Linux might find a haven among students and hobbyists who like to do tinkering.

The people who use the computers are always more expensive than the price of the computer and the software.

The poker game is over and Bill Gates has won all the chips. The current wrangling is just about tipping the dealer.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

NO ONE FORCES ANYONE! BOTH SIDES AGREE TO THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT!

You are a real hothead, aren't you. Do you still beat your wife?

Microsoft forced Dell to stop installing Linux or they would not be allowed to install Windows anymore.

I don't agree with laws that mandate the use of open source, either, but what is the difference between forcing a company to install your software exclusively and forcing a government to use open source software exclusively?

[Reeses]

OpenSource is looking better all the time. I'm very impressed with the quality of OpenSource I've used. OpenSource has to have quality else it wouldn't survive. Also, it's not junked up with useless features requested by a marketing department. Like car makers, software companies have discovered they make their money on the repairs, not the initial sale. Hence proprietary software companies have a vested interest in selling junk.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

You are a real hothead, aren't you. Do you still beat your wife?

What? What the hell is this supposed to mean? Why am I even responding to someone who could only hide behind anonymity to make such a statement?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Why am I even responding to someone who could only hide behind anonymity to make such a statement?

That answers my question.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The poker game is over and Bill Gates has won all the chips. The current wrangling is just about tipping the dealer.

BioForce1 signed up 2002-08-23.

How IS the weather in Redmond today? How many times have you brown-nosed your boss?

[discostu]

The difference is that companies enter into contracts voluntarily and if they think the costs outweigh the benefits they can tell the other company to get bent. If the open source only law passes there's nothing voluntary about it, no form of negotiation, no ability to back away from a bad deal.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Look, I would have gladly discussed the MS/Dell stuff with you, but you just had to poke fun at my baby-eating violent streak.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Look, I would have gladly discussed the MS/Dell stuff with you, but you just had to poke fun at my baby-eating violent streak.

Nothing's stopping you. Except that the facts are not on your side.

I believe in freedom. I believe people should be free to buy proprietary spyware if they choose to do so, but they should also be free to buy a new PC with Linux on it if that is what they choose. I can think of no reason that would upset you.