- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
It's Time for Obama to Come Out for FOSS
With hordes of lobbyists deployed on the ground in Washington and in state capitals throughout the nation, it was soon a brave, and perhaps foolhardy, public IT manager who would dare to take a public stand in defense of FOSS. It's time for the Obama Administration to publicly state that it whole heartedly supports FOSS procurement by the federal agencies. Not in preference to proprietary software, but on an equal basis. Only by doing so can it ensure that when it comes to getting the best deal for the American public, the best software will win. |
|
|
Comments (68)
Highly unlikely
4 earlier comments in the full thread.
Jd, nonono, it's not a TOS violation if Microsoft is the foil. Especially Microsoft's money.
I have to side with Bigg on this one. The use of F/OSS just isn't a nationally political issue. And I really don't want it to be one, either.
As a taxpayer, I'm glad when taxes are not spend on proprietary software. I appreciated Peter Quinn(sp?)'s efforts in Massachusetts, and SE-Linux, because they're situations where I agree with the actions and reasons given.
But as soon as it becomes a "political" issue, we're going to get a bunch of low-lifes looking for how they can benefit from one side or the other, and we'll quickly be afflicted with software licensing and a regulated Internet.
I have to side with Bigg on this one. The use of F/OSS just isn't a nationally political issue. And I really don't want it to be one, either.
As a taxpayer, I'm glad when taxes are not spend on proprietary software. I appreciated Peter Quinn(sp?)'s efforts in Massachusetts, and SE-Linux, because they're situations where I agree with the actions and reasons given.
But as soon as it becomes a "political" issue, we're going to get a bunch of low-lifes looking for how they can benefit from one side or the other, and we'll quickly be afflicted with software licensing and a regulated Internet.
I agree that this is a non-issue to most people. Most people have no clue what FOSS or FLOSS means or even the issues behind it. I also agree that it's probably best that way.
Maybe FSF can ship Obama a laptop with Gnewsense on it?
Very few laptops work with GNewSense. Most have at least one chipset that is proprietary. The one exception I am certain would work is the Lemote Yelong, a MIPS based system that RMS uses. The 800MHz processor speed would probably make it an unimpressive choice.
Personally, I'm an Open Source pragmatist, not an FSF purist. I have no problem with a well configured laptop or netbook with a popular Linux distro as a gift for the President. I think he probably would prefer a U.S.-based one. Fedora, maybe? OpenSUSE? Something like that.
Personally, I'm an Open Source pragmatist, not an FSF purist. I have no problem with a well configured laptop or netbook with a popular Linux distro as a gift for the President. I think he probably would prefer a U.S.-based one. Fedora, maybe? OpenSUSE? Something like that.
Any gift to the President becomes the property of the US Govt. I doubt he'd even see it.
> I think he probably would prefer a U.S.-based one.
Don't see any reason why, in fact Ubuntu would hook into that whole "first ethnic president" thing that was such a big deal a year ago.
Maybe get his grammar school in Indonesia on the OLPC list?
Unsolicited gifts are going to be tossed in the nearest bomb-bucket, sad to say.
Don't see any reason why, in fact Ubuntu would hook into that whole "first ethnic president" thing that was such a big deal a year ago.
Maybe get his grammar school in Indonesia on the OLPC list?
Unsolicited gifts are going to be tossed in the nearest bomb-bucket, sad to say.
Quoting:Maybe get his grammar school in Indonesia on the OLPC list?
It was a Catholic school IIRC, not a government-run one, so that might make it easier.
Quoting:Don't see any reason why, in fact Ubuntu would hook into that whole "first ethnic president" thing that was such a big deal a year ago.
Maybe, but he is the American President, after all, and has talked a lot about creating jobs in this country. {No, I'm not going to discuss his policies. I think job creation is a goal that transcends left/right or political parties and is hopefully decidedly non-controversial.}
Quoting:Unsolicited gifts are going to be tossed in the nearest bomb-bucket, sad to say.
If sent directly, yes. If arrangements were made through your Congressional representative, probably not. You would have to have a Congressional representative who is sold on FLOSS, of course. I don't know if there are many of those in either political party.
> I don't know if there are many of those in either political party.
The only two I know of who might be approachable on the matter are Boucher and Paul (ironically, one from each party).
The only two I know of who might be approachable on the matter are Boucher and Paul (ironically, one from each party).
Actually McNealy was fingered early on for this:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Obama-taps-Suns-McNealy-for-...
Bad choice in my considered opinion.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Obama-taps-Suns-McNealy-for-...
Bad choice in my considered opinion.
If we can talk about the government using more FOSS then I think we will be alright, I say that as much to myself as to anyone because I chose to post this story. This is where I get fuzzy on the TOS because of how I see what FOSS can become.
If the ideals of Free Software can help make my government and as a consequence our society better, then I am all for it. But the slinging of situational daggers that has become the standard of political existence handicaps any debate or deliberation on the matter. No one, not even me, can make it through a conversation about FOSS and government without pigeonholing ourselves and our audience just to make a personal point.
The specific individuals currently or not currently serving in our government have little to do with the philosophy behind wanting to embrace or install FOSS ideals in our government. It has to start as a societal issue which then finds fruition in the government(s) we choose to be governed by.
Because that issue , what FOSS can ultimately do for us, all of us, is immeasurably bigger than just our how our government could or should operate. Its not just how our technology or government could or should operate but how our society could or should operate, which would be expressed in the forms of government we create for ourselves.
I feel like I just channeled, I have been trying to find the right words to express this for some time now. It is this issue that I believe will either be the wall that FOSS can never climb, or the wall that FOSS finally brings down to the benefit of all mankind..
I believe in FOSS so much that I think it can change the very nature of our existence.
If the ideals of Free Software can help make my government and as a consequence our society better, then I am all for it. But the slinging of situational daggers that has become the standard of political existence handicaps any debate or deliberation on the matter. No one, not even me, can make it through a conversation about FOSS and government without pigeonholing ourselves and our audience just to make a personal point.
The specific individuals currently or not currently serving in our government have little to do with the philosophy behind wanting to embrace or install FOSS ideals in our government. It has to start as a societal issue which then finds fruition in the government(s) we choose to be governed by.
Because that issue , what FOSS can ultimately do for us, all of us, is immeasurably bigger than just our how our government could or should operate. Its not just how our technology or government could or should operate but how our society could or should operate, which would be expressed in the forms of government we create for ourselves.
I feel like I just channeled, I have been trying to find the right words to express this for some time now. It is this issue that I believe will either be the wall that FOSS can never climb, or the wall that FOSS finally brings down to the benefit of all mankind..
I believe in FOSS so much that I think it can change the very nature of our existence.
@montezuma: I agree with you. Sun never fully embraced Open Source. Mr. McNealy is not a FOSS advocate by any stretch of the imagination.
@Scott It's not just about the ideals of FOSS. It's also about money.
Government IT projects have a horrible track record of going over budget, performing poor and generally being a large collection of problems all ready for TheDailyWTF. That's costing the tax payer millions, if not billions.
The cost benefits (not just acquiring, but TCO) and supporting local vendors instead of the big billionaires should be a much easier point to drive home for representatives and tax payers. And if in the process some of the FOSS philosophies rub off on the government, that can only be a good thing :-)
Government IT projects have a horrible track record of going over budget, performing poor and generally being a large collection of problems all ready for TheDailyWTF. That's costing the tax payer millions, if not billions.
The cost benefits (not just acquiring, but TCO) and supporting local vendors instead of the big billionaires should be a much easier point to drive home for representatives and tax payers. And if in the process some of the FOSS philosophies rub off on the government, that can only be a good thing :-)
> and generally being a large collection of problems all ready for TheDailyWTF.
The bureaucratic incentives involved make such over-runs and inefficiencies the rule, rather than the exception. Time to break out the _Yes, Minister_ tapes again.
> And if in the process some of the FOSS philosophies rub off on the government, that can only be a good thing :-)
I worked at NASA for a while (contractor) and Linux was alive and well and growing. Very much in the mythical "Gee, I have to get something working right now" situations.
And, as we all know well, it worked every time. There was one heck of a deep knowledge of UNIX there, which helped matters.
The bureaucratic incentives involved make such over-runs and inefficiencies the rule, rather than the exception. Time to break out the _Yes, Minister_ tapes again.
> And if in the process some of the FOSS philosophies rub off on the government, that can only be a good thing :-)
I worked at NASA for a while (contractor) and Linux was alive and well and growing. Very much in the mythical "Gee, I have to get something working right now" situations.
And, as we all know well, it worked every time. There was one heck of a deep knowledge of UNIX there, which helped matters.
Quoting:FOSS is an "eyes glazed over" topic for the vast majority of voters.
It doesn't have to be this way. Maybe the people in the US could try it the French / Italian way:
http://www.april.org/en/european-parliament-2009-elections-a...
and if you succeed, your president may even talk about Free Software at a Free Software conference - just like Lula of Brazil did;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBE1Ux-saqA
Sadly I don't speak Portugese, but the president of a country _understanding_ the merits of FOSS is truly what might change the world.
My own country doesn't fare to bad either. Basically because some 'left wing' party proposed to prefer OSOSS (open source software and open standards) in 2002. A unique thing happened: All members of parliament, including all right parties, accepted this proposal (normally the right parties are always against ideas of the left parties and the other way around).
Seven years later and OSOSS in NL government is happening slowly. Slowly because of some resistance from proprietary vendor alliances (usual suspects), the government being locked in and the continuity of their services being the primary objective - maybe some technical difficulties, and some people in government who adopt slowly to change. But nonetheless it's really happening, step by step. Sander can probably tell more about this, since he's involved in this whole thing it seems, but I joined the presentation of NoiV (Netherlands open in Connection) at T-Dose and I heard great stories about things which are changing slowly.
I started an article about open source in Dutch government about a year ago (!) but I should still finish it. However, I want it to be correct, and as I'm only a hobbyist FOSS user and not really involved in the issue, it's a bit hard to know all that's going on.
And then I've been trying to track progress of FOSS in China, but that battle is lost. This is where it's really turning political, so let me just provide the link of a really great story (probably the best Linux-story I read this past year) and you can read for yourself how 'they' sold out (hint: Who 'they' are is not really certain, read the article and you'll understand). Suffice to say I was _really_ p*ssed after reading the article. However, what's truly unique, is that all Linux websites remained silent about these issues, but CNN did care. Thanks and kudos to them. So here comes the biggest Linux failure of the last decennium, another story which makes clear it's not all about the money. One you should read, IMHO.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/...
OK, now you know why there aren't nice Chinese government supported Linux distro's.
Ok, a couple other things.
First, "it's not their money." So the cost argument isn't going to be all that effective once the cameras are turned off.
Second, here in the US it's much harder to argue "home grown software" because, sad to say, Microsoft is a US company.
First, "it's not their money." So the cost argument isn't going to be all that effective once the cameras are turned off.
Second, here in the US it's much harder to argue "home grown software" because, sad to say, Microsoft is a US company.
Thanks Henke.
I knew the Belgian government has lots of problems, and as they're human, they make wrong decisions from time to time. I didn't knew it was this bad however.
How on earth could this have happened - especially in Brussels? After all, isn't it in Brussels that they decided government projects above €100.000 or so should have a public tender? Didn't Belgium also set itself the goal of using more open source & open standards? Isn't it true that their government already has issues with "shortage of money to spend"? This truly is a sad day.
I knew the Belgian government has lots of problems, and as they're human, they make wrong decisions from time to time. I didn't knew it was this bad however.
How on earth could this have happened - especially in Brussels? After all, isn't it in Brussels that they decided government projects above €100.000 or so should have a public tender? Didn't Belgium also set itself the goal of using more open source & open standards? Isn't it true that their government already has issues with "shortage of money to spend"? This truly is a sad day.
@Bob_Robertson Microsoft may be a "US company" because of where their headquarters are, but they are sending more and more of their software development work overseas to cheaper countries, so one could probably make an argument that they may not be that "home grown" anymore.
Quoting:Sander can probably tell more about this, since he's involved in this whole thing it seems
Somewhat involved yes. I'm pretty immersed into all things related to ODF. I know people in NoiV, NLNet Foundation and the OpenDoc Society. I am also involved in a sizeable MS-Office to OpenOffice transistion. Unfortunately I am not allowed to write publicly about that (yet).
Quoting:After all, isn't it in Brussels that they decided government projects above €100.000 or so should have a public tender?
I don't know what has been agreed on a European level, but for The Netherlands at least it's anything over € 25.000
> Unfortunately I am not allowed to write publicly about that (yet).
Keep notes!
That's the kind of project that can make converts!
Keep notes!
That's the kind of project that can make converts!
Time to come out against most "Intellectual Property"
9 earlier comments in the full thread.
@Hans
This one's a little different. phsolide (as I read it) said IP leads to monopoly. Caitlyn made a (not entirely clear) comment that IP is different from monopoly. I think it's quite relevant to the article. Also, I agreed with Bob, and you'd have to look for a long time at mises.org to find my point of view on anything.
Whether IP is bad as a general matter would be off-topic.
This one's a little different. phsolide (as I read it) said IP leads to monopoly. Caitlyn made a (not entirely clear) comment that IP is different from monopoly. I think it's quite relevant to the article. Also, I agreed with Bob, and you'd have to look for a long time at mises.org to find my point of view on anything.
Whether IP is bad as a general matter would be off-topic.
Please, HK, where did I link to Mises.org?
Maybe you're jumping the gun a bit.
Maybe you're jumping the gun a bit.
I said that some monopolies go by the name of "Intellectual Property". This is a matter of fact.
I did not say that "IP leads to monopoly". That's contrary to fact. The IP is the monopoly.
And I do think that legal issues with free/libre/open source have a lot to do with what goes by the name of "Intellectual Property" these days. Consider the interaction with any media format that has "DRM" on it.
Does anybody else remember the "CPRM" IDE kerfuffle?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12/20/stealth_plan_puts_co... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/02/son_of_cprm_fails_at...
That sort of thing would have put an end to all open source operating systems.
I did not say that "IP leads to monopoly". That's contrary to fact. The IP is the monopoly.
And I do think that legal issues with free/libre/open source have a lot to do with what goes by the name of "Intellectual Property" these days. Consider the interaction with any media format that has "DRM" on it.
Does anybody else remember the "CPRM" IDE kerfuffle?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12/20/stealth_plan_puts_co... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/02/son_of_cprm_fails_at...
That sort of thing would have put an end to all open source operating systems.
> I did not say that "IP leads to monopoly". That's contrary to fact. The IP is the monopoly.
I don't understand the distinction, but fine.
I don't understand the distinction, but fine.
Intellectual Property is a much wider concept than what applies to FOSS. For example, the copyright a musician holds to their compositions is a form of IP, one I wholeheartedly support.
For that matter, I am not opposed to IP as it relates to software either. I started my career as a proprietary software developer. I knew my company was going to own and sell my work. They paid for the development process and they should own it. How to license and distribute it is a choice they made. They chose proprietary for an obvious reason: it was highly specialized software of interest only to a very small market, specifically companies in the same line of business. There never would have been a large user base if it had been Open Source.
My problem with banning IP is that it removes the ownership of the creation from the creator. To go open or closed it a choice that should be left to the creator of the work, not mandated by law.
For that matter, I am not opposed to IP as it relates to software either. I started my career as a proprietary software developer. I knew my company was going to own and sell my work. They paid for the development process and they should own it. How to license and distribute it is a choice they made. They chose proprietary for an obvious reason: it was highly specialized software of interest only to a very small market, specifically companies in the same line of business. There never would have been a large user base if it had been Open Source.
My problem with banning IP is that it removes the ownership of the creation from the creator. To go open or closed it a choice that should be left to the creator of the work, not mandated by law.
> Maybe it would just suffice to tell people to read on at Mises...
Actually, linking to mises is what got one of the threads killed. Some folks objected to it, arguing that it was a politically linked site.
Actually, linking to mises is what got one of the threads killed. Some folks objected to it, arguing that it was a politically linked site.
@caitlyn
I don't think anyone is arguing with you (whether or not they agree with you). That doesn't change the fact that if you the copyright on your software, you have been awarded a monopoly on the distribution of your software.
I don't think anyone is arguing with you (whether or not they agree with you). That doesn't change the fact that if you the copyright on your software, you have been awarded a monopoly on the distribution of your software.
The problem is that people like us talk about IP in first place. The ones who invented that term want us to feel the same about the current patent system and how it works out, and copyright and trademarks. But they're just different. You can favour one while rejecting the other. That's why Caitlyn (and others) can't tell if she's pro- or anti-IP. The people who invented the IP would like to see 'You're with IP or you're against IP".
Bob: Suffice to say I'm sorry, but I just had visions. And those visions didn't come 'by coincidence' out of /dev/random. Bigg; actually I was referring to the discussion I almost started with Bob when referring to Mises. To be honest, I did enjoy reading that site, but sadly I can't point out how their theory is flawed because they have no forums. So I understand it's tempting to use LXer forums instead, and that also goes for myself.
Bob: Suffice to say I'm sorry, but I just had visions. And those visions didn't come 'by coincidence' out of /dev/random. Bigg; actually I was referring to the discussion I almost started with Bob when referring to Mises. To be honest, I did enjoy reading that site, but sadly I can't point out how their theory is flawed because they have no forums. So I understand it's tempting to use LXer forums instead, and that also goes for myself.
Hans, I am pro-IP. I am very clear on that and not confused at all. I am against certain abuses of IP or flaws in the system as it exists today. The way software patents are issued in the U.S. for concepts rather than specific code is a perfect example of a flaw in the system that needs to be changed. That doesn't mean that I am in any way opposed to the overall concept of IP.
I actually read and hear more of that from those who oppose IP strenuously. Most folks who like the status quo, or at least some variant of it, aren't so black and white.
Quoting:The people who invented the IP would like to see 'You're with IP or you're against IP".
I actually read and hear more of that from those who oppose IP strenuously. Most folks who like the status quo, or at least some variant of it, aren't so black and white.
Hk,
> because they (mises.org) have no forums.
Every article has a corresponding blog.mises.org entry where anyone can comment. There is also a free blog forum if you want to bring things up.
Caitlyn,
> My problem with banning IP...
The problem with this position is that it doesn't follow from how IP works.
Intellectual Property is established by law. Copyrights and patents are established as property by force of law.
There is nothing to "prohibit", the same way that removing a match does not "prohibit" the fuse from igniting. Or removing the saw somehow "prohibits" the tree from falling, or removing the chair somehow "prohibits" the person standing upon it from remaining 2 feet above the floor.
I know we disagree about the balance of good and bad effects of these legal establishments, but let's make sure to keep the terms correct.
Repealing the legal constructs that create "IP" would not eliminate creativity, any more than repealing the legal constructs that create "incorporation" would eliminate people coming together to create products or solve problems.
What the repeal would do is eliminate the legal status of those, like SCO and the record labels, who use that legal leverage to profit at the expense of others.
> because they (mises.org) have no forums.
Every article has a corresponding blog.mises.org entry where anyone can comment. There is also a free blog forum if you want to bring things up.
Caitlyn,
> My problem with banning IP...
The problem with this position is that it doesn't follow from how IP works.
Intellectual Property is established by law. Copyrights and patents are established as property by force of law.
There is nothing to "prohibit", the same way that removing a match does not "prohibit" the fuse from igniting. Or removing the saw somehow "prohibits" the tree from falling, or removing the chair somehow "prohibits" the person standing upon it from remaining 2 feet above the floor.
I know we disagree about the balance of good and bad effects of these legal establishments, but let's make sure to keep the terms correct.
Repealing the legal constructs that create "IP" would not eliminate creativity, any more than repealing the legal constructs that create "incorporation" would eliminate people coming together to create products or solve problems.
What the repeal would do is eliminate the legal status of those, like SCO and the record labels, who use that legal leverage to profit at the expense of others.
Bob, I know we're rehashing an old argument, one where we will never agree. I find the concept of repealing all copyright and patent laws akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I believe in a society governed by laws and I want the law to stand behind my right to own what I create.
SCO and RIAA are examples of abuses to be corrected. Correcting abuses doesn't require throwing out the whole system.
When you say "record labels" you are painting with a very broad brush. Small, independent labels, many if not most of which are owned by artists, are not the problem. It's only the so-called major labels which fund the RIAA and its efforts.
SCO and RIAA are examples of abuses to be corrected. Correcting abuses doesn't require throwing out the whole system.
When you say "record labels" you are painting with a very broad brush. Small, independent labels, many if not most of which are owned by artists, are not the problem. It's only the so-called major labels which fund the RIAA and its efforts.
> It's only the so-called major labels which fund the RIAA and its efforts.
My mistake, you are quite correct. I meant the RIAA and pals, and incorrectly used the term "record labels".
I figure you should thank me, since it was a vigorous argument twixt the two of us that brought you to the full realization of your support for copyright.
That's one of the benefits of arguing based upon principle rather than just utility. Everyone can learn something, even about their own position.
> Correcting abuses doesn't require throwing out the whole system.
Indeed, on this point we will never agree. It is the system itself which fosters the abuse, which will occur so long as the system exists.
I will agree that having some Uncorruptable Philosopher Kings around to decide what is and is not "abuse" would be nice, for the benefits of IP without the moral hazards. I just don't see any Uncorruptable Philosopher Kings looking for work.
My mistake, you are quite correct. I meant the RIAA and pals, and incorrectly used the term "record labels".
I figure you should thank me, since it was a vigorous argument twixt the two of us that brought you to the full realization of your support for copyright.
That's one of the benefits of arguing based upon principle rather than just utility. Everyone can learn something, even about their own position.
> Correcting abuses doesn't require throwing out the whole system.
Indeed, on this point we will never agree. It is the system itself which fosters the abuse, which will occur so long as the system exists.
I will agree that having some Uncorruptable Philosopher Kings around to decide what is and is not "abuse" would be nice, for the benefits of IP without the moral hazards. I just don't see any Uncorruptable Philosopher Kings looking for work.
Quoting:I will agree that having some Uncorruptable Philosopher Kings around to decide what is and is not "abuse" would be niceWell, as soon as they finish eating, I'm sure they'll jump right on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_philosophers_problem
> I just don't see any Uncorruptable Philosopher Kings looking for work.
I'd ask how much it pays, but I don't really consider myself uncorruptable. :) Given that I'm now 51 and fairly well set in my ways, I'm not sure if there would be enough time for the system to corrupt me, but it's at least possible that it could do so.
I'd ask how much it pays, but I don't really consider myself uncorruptable. :) Given that I'm now 51 and fairly well set in my ways, I'm not sure if there would be enough time for the system to corrupt me, but it's at least possible that it could do so.
I'm Incorrigibly Uncorruptable. Ask anyone who knows me.
(But that doesn't mean I don't screw up royally once in a while.)
(But that doesn't mean I don't screw up royally once in a while.)
> but I don't really consider myself uncorruptable. :)
Heck, I _know_ I could be bought. I think my price is pretty darned high, but knowing it is still possible is just another step towards realizing that no one can truly be "trusted" with power.
Heck, I _know_ I could be bought. I think my price is pretty darned high, but knowing it is still possible is just another step towards realizing that no one can truly be "trusted" with power.
Bigg -
No.
Monopoly requires a larger focus:
Microsoft did not have a monopoly on Windows, they had a monopoly on desk top computers because nobody could compete with Windows.
Patents do grant a monopoly by prevent others from solving the same problem in the same way. Even that monopoly leaves some room because there tends to be more than one good solution to most problems.
No.
Monopoly requires a larger focus:
Microsoft did not have a monopoly on Windows, they had a monopoly on desk top computers because nobody could compete with Windows.
Patents do grant a monopoly by prevent others from solving the same problem in the same way. Even that monopoly leaves some room because there tends to be more than one good solution to most problems.
> they had a monopoly on desk top computers because nobody could compete with Windows.
I would like to clarify: since MacOS, the Xwindow system, AmigaOS and other "desktop" GUI systems existed before and through the life of MS-Win, it has always been possible to compete with MS-Win.
It has always been possible to buy hardware without Windows.
What Microsoft did is grab mind-share, starting with MS-DOS, equating in the minds of the general population that personal computer equals MS-Win.
So I would change your statement from "nobody could compete with Windows" to "No one was able to out-compete Microsoft."
I consider that a very big difference from the legally enforced monopolies of copyright and patent. Selling a Linux PC would never have landed one in jail.
I would like to clarify: since MacOS, the Xwindow system, AmigaOS and other "desktop" GUI systems existed before and through the life of MS-Win, it has always been possible to compete with MS-Win.
It has always been possible to buy hardware without Windows.
What Microsoft did is grab mind-share, starting with MS-DOS, equating in the minds of the general population that personal computer equals MS-Win.
So I would change your statement from "nobody could compete with Windows" to "No one was able to out-compete Microsoft."
I consider that a very big difference from the legally enforced monopolies of copyright and patent. Selling a Linux PC would never have landed one in jail.
Bob -
"Compete" means more than the ability to offer a product and eke out a few sales. In the antitrust sense, competition means that a good product has the potential to dethrone the current market leader.
"Compete" means more than the ability to offer a product and eke out a few sales. In the antitrust sense, competition means that a good product has the potential to dethrone the current market leader.
Then I guess it all depends upon one's opinion of "potential".
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE : "Clarifying Guidance Regarding OSS"
Quoting:OCT 16 2009 SUBJECT: Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS) References: See Attachment I To effectively achieve its missions, the Department of Defense must develop and update its software-based capabilities faster than ever, to anticipate new threats and respond to continuously changing requirements. The use of Open Source Software (OSS) can provide advantages in this regard. This memorandum provides clarifying guidance on the use of OSS and supersedes the previous DoD CIO memorandum dated May 28,2003 (reference (a)). Open Source Software is software for which the human-readable source code is available for use, study, reuse, modification, enhancement, and redistribution by the users of that software. In other words, OSS is software for which the source code is "open."http://powdermonkey.blogs.com/files/2009oss.pdf
Having worked in a government agency, I can say that the requirement for "auditing" fits the use of F/OSS perfectly.
Closed-source software in fact seems quite impossible to use in conjunction with the "audit" requirements.
Closed-source software in fact seems quite impossible to use in conjunction with the "audit" requirements.
"Transparency like you’ve never seen before"
3 times Ballmer on the list :
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-...
Not to mention one for Bill Gates.
Golly. Color me surprised.
TOS, Bob.
You are not dropping down and kissing ground as called for.
You are not dropping down and kissing ground as called for.
Kissing ground is un-hygienic. Isn't there something else he can do?
and how can you see transparency?
tc -
Transparency is like most politicians: easy to see through.
Transparency is like most politicians: easy to see through.
Transparence != invisibility
Wonder if the chairs have been rechecked for structural stability?
Quoting:Wonder if the chairs have been rechecked for structural stability?
I hear they did that on the deck of the Titanic, and then shuffled them around for good measure.
Quoting:nd how can you see transparency?
Once you break it.
Transparency is like air - the dirtier (less-transparent) it is the better you can see it.
And the more it smells funny.
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
The whole article and thread is a TOS violation waiting to happen. :(