Invisible Linux
|
|
|
Comments (2)
linux the ugly stepchild
Yikes!
"Invisible Linux" is even worse than "Open Source". Don't get me wrong. Open Source has brought to us many wonderful pieces of software, but at the cost of awareness that reasonable licensing terms on software matter. By de-emphasizing the importance of rights equality for all users, Open Source has made open development palatable for big business, but it has also shoved the core values that make open development so successful under the rug. "Don't think about freedom. Use our software because it is simply better."
"Invisible Linux" is just the next logical step. Shove the software out of sight, print the right to source code in micro-print on page 853 in the manual and treat Linux like just another piece of firmware. Out of sight, out of mind. Just slap a big EULA on the visible proprietary bits and go about business as usual. Joe and Jane Average will never be the wiser and they will never be bothered to think about their weak and low position on the ladder when it comes to rights and obligations for the software they use.
Microsoft will love this. Linux as an invisible firmware isn't a threat. Stand alone gadgets do not threaten the Windows/Office monopolies. Gadgets that need interaction with a computer just need to interface with Windows and that can be done with Linux as well as with any other black box firmware. As long as end users don't know they have the option of using a fully free and powerful OS, they will accept all the shenanigans proprietary software vendors pull with them.
This is what happens when you decouple politics from software use. When your user base only cares about instant gratification and not about their long term position as a user, you end up with corporations and institutions running roughshod over user rights. In the absence of broad awareness that freedom matters more than temporary convenience, you'll encounter a steady erosion of previously uncontested rights.
Invisible Linux; "Come, I've got a nice little golden cage. All you have to do is sign your name in blood on the dotted line..."
"Invisible Linux" is just the next logical step. Shove the software out of sight, print the right to source code in micro-print on page 853 in the manual and treat Linux like just another piece of firmware. Out of sight, out of mind. Just slap a big EULA on the visible proprietary bits and go about business as usual. Joe and Jane Average will never be the wiser and they will never be bothered to think about their weak and low position on the ladder when it comes to rights and obligations for the software they use.
Microsoft will love this. Linux as an invisible firmware isn't a threat. Stand alone gadgets do not threaten the Windows/Office monopolies. Gadgets that need interaction with a computer just need to interface with Windows and that can be done with Linux as well as with any other black box firmware. As long as end users don't know they have the option of using a fully free and powerful OS, they will accept all the shenanigans proprietary software vendors pull with them.
This is what happens when you decouple politics from software use. When your user base only cares about instant gratification and not about their long term position as a user, you end up with corporations and institutions running roughshod over user rights. In the absence of broad awareness that freedom matters more than temporary convenience, you'll encounter a steady erosion of previously uncontested rights.
Invisible Linux; "Come, I've got a nice little golden cage. All you have to do is sign your name in blood on the dotted line..."
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post

http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/2008/10/leave-it-to-little-guy... "We offer solutions, not systems."