| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
The politics of open-source software | |
|
||
| Time: 09:47 EST/14:47 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Wendy and the Initiative for Software Choice (ISC) are by far the most vocal opponents of a growing trend that they believe may jeopardize the future of the worldwide commercial software industry. Laws that, if enacted, would all but prohibit government agencies from purchasing proprietary software for their own use. Because of the size of governments' ever-growing information technology budgets, billions of dollars are at stake. ("Open source" means that, at the very least, the source code is available, and "free software" means that anyone who modifies the code may, if they distribute it, be required to disclose details of the modifications.) | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:43:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/14/2003 11:13:29 AM |
|
That's sort of interesting logic, though, CooCooCaChoo--why isn't the question: If OSS has a better product/deal and can prove it, then why are laws to enforce usage of OSS necessary?
These types of laws (prohibiting all but certain vendors) rarely work out for the best. It is a severe restriction of choice. Isn't that part of what OSS is about--choice? Why not let the governments pick the best software for the task? Why not allow both? Obviously, "government" encompasses a great deal of roles, and requiring one tool to be used for all jobs doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If OSS is as superior as its proponents claim, then it doesn't need any laws enforcing its use. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/14/2003 2:24:13 PM |
|
CooCooCaChoo - I don't understand your post. Quite clearly your issues are correct, but they should instead be addressed at the Open Source community, not Microsoft. For it is the Open Source community who is feverishly lobbying the Government to eliminate free market competition in the software industry.
Microsoft simply wants to be allowed to compete for government projects on the basis of the value of their product. I don't think that position is unreasonable at all, nor does it seem that you disagree, but have rather misinterpreted their claims. Maybe you need to reread this article again, as well as the law the OSS community has proposed to outlaw commercial software... http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/bill_opensource.html |
| #3 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at 7/14/2003 2:36:12 PM |
| #3, sodablue. Why cloud the issues with facts and details? |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/14/2003 5:40:02 PM |
|
#4 - Yeah, I know. Facts just get in the way of good arguments.
|
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/14/2003 6:18:10 PM |
| cba-3.14, "giving back to society" is a pretty weak argument. First, governments aren't likely to distribute any code changes they make, so they won't be required to disclose them. Secondly, money spent on software spurs the economy--money spent for resources used. If a country has a lot of its software development talent being put towards OSS, they are putting themselves at an economic disadvantage to those countries whose software dev talent is going towards commercial software. In the end, they aren't doing their "society" many favors. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/14/2003 11:33:08 PM |
|
cba-3.14 - "It's similar to the reason that stuff developed by government research is supposed to go back to the public ala OSS. "
Oddly enough, government research is not released under anti-commercial licenses like what OSS prefers. So your example fails. "I can't really understand why you think it's better for Munich to send money to Redmond than it is for them to give the money to software and computer engineers in their own locale! " This is called a strawman since nobody is arguing that point of view. |
| #7 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 7/14/2003 11:48:46 PM |
| cba - no one is saying they shouldn't support their local programmers. But thats not the way it is being reported. |
| #8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/15/2003 10:30:57 AM |
|
cba-3.14, interesting that you suggest that the NSA would take the "bolt-on" security approach ("...with Linux, they can add security..."). Anyhow, it's not as if NSA experts are the only experts in the security field. Commercial software vendors can employ security experts as much--if not more, since they can put more $$$ towards it--than OSS.
Your building analogy does not relate well. To extend it a bit, buildings also require maintenance, and sometimes they require patching (if the roof leaks, for example). Buildings also have an expected lifetime. Software also requires maintenance and patching, but generally has a much shorter life expectancy. Beyond that, the dynamics of making buildings and coding software are a bit different. Whereas with buildings, it's usually not necessary to go back to the original contractor to receive maintenance, with software it is a much better idea. As for Munich, it would be best if they could pay their own development talent to produce commercial software. Even if they pay their development talent to write OSS, if it is released to the rest of the world, they are giving away some of their country's resources. It is a common government purpose to provide services to its citizens, but this establishes services beyond the country's borders. It starts to bring into question foreign policy issues. |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/16/2003 3:32:16 AM |
|
cba-3.14,
With the NSA, they can't bolt security onto "Linux" without Torvald's approval. It's not as simple as it may sound. As for Munich, the example is a bit indirect since it is a city. If you consider Munich as a part of Germany, however, the reasons become much more clear. Munich is not really a competitor of Chicago, but Germany is a competitor with the US. Reinventing the wheel may not be necessary, but reinventing software is the reason for so many of our current and future great pieces of software. It needs to continue. If OSS is an end to that... if OSS provides developers with little incentive to reinvent the word processor or a write a revolutionary new method of memory management or code a new email client that presents the messages in a new and more useful way (which I would argue it does, in many ways), it would be very sad. What a pity to go from the thriving, dynamic, sometimes chaotic, and risky world of software that drove so much of the productivity gains of the past couple decades to one that would rather have cheap, commodity software that is economically inert. |
| #10 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/16/2003 1:29:28 PM |
|
cba-3.14:
giving the patches to linus and asking him to put it in the "100% pure-linus" kernel is not necessary. The GPL allows the NSA to distribute linux with their own kernel, etc., directly to you and me. It is necessary if it's going to remain "Linux." Linus has to sign off on the kernel, otherwise it's no longer Linux. From what I've read, I don't think Linus is too keen on people calling something Linux if it doesn't contain his approved kernel. The market itself is made of standards. Nothing prevents proprietary software from using standards. Standards aren't the point. The competition I'm talking about is not as much the competition of technology as it is the promotion of the wealth and wellbeing of the country. It is. You don't have to think "apache", but what about the STL, now part of the C++ Standardl Library. True, but we’re talking about Linux. There are definitely uses for OSS, but I think the line of what’s “old news” and what can still be improved significantly or revolutionized is drawn too far out in OSS camps (e.g., “the point is that a thing like an OS is old news”). you have it wrong there…. So that frees the exciting ideas for the next problems…. It’s not that there isn’t a use for OSS, it’s just that pervasive OSS would be a detriment to the health of the software industry. OSS is lead by idealistic people, but so many (I would safely guess the majority) in the software development world are not. This really gets back to economic and human motivation factors, which is why so many have compared OSS to Communism. Despite the loaded connotation that the word “Communism” has, there are many lessons to be learned. The common flaw in the logic is that you can remove the variable of economic incentive from the picture, and people will work just as hard (if not harder and more efficiently). The OSS community contradicts themselves by saying that OSS doesn’t preclude the developers from making money while saying that the main attraction of OSS is the software savings. Do the math—if you’re taking a great deal of the money out of the picture, how are the software devs getting paid? The main reason that businesses are taking notice of the OSS community is because it means they have to pay less $$$. While not totally complete, it’s a very simple fundamental equation--less money going into the software community will slow down the software economy, and the smaller amount of money, the more it slows down. And, the bigger problem is that, as OSS would become pervasive, the incentive for any increase in the economy goes with it. One is a failed student of history to believe that a stale, stagnant economy without incentive/hope will produce great ideas. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:43:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
