Microsoft and open source

[miklb]

Not sure where this should go, but found it an interesting read, especially in light of all the open source software that I'm learning about via OS X.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp

[Glanz]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/29157.html

[small excerpt of a very enlightening article]

<<IDG's reporter says: "The US opposition was largely perceived to be support for its domestic software companies and in particular Microsoft Corp, said officials from other governments on the sidelines of the conference on Wednesday." But while this is true enough, and it's clearly a matter of US policy, it's not US policy to mug open source to death.

Not exactly, anyway. The Microsoft-sponsored Initiative for Software Choice* effectively follows and promotes the policies of Microsoft and (we'd guess) the vast majority of commercial software companies as regards open source mandation. They are happy for open source to compete on what they see as a level playing field, but fight any attempts by governments and legislatures to mandate the use of open source. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's a point of view, and if you happen to be a major commercial software company then it's surely perfectly reasonable to object to proposals that would stop you selling to government at all.>>

[Phil St. Romain]

Let's move this to the Coat Room since it's not reviewing any specific software and is more policy oriented.

Good topic!

[slur]

The government has a clear mandate to do what is in the best interest of the citizens it represents. It should be noted, however, that the government has a monopoly on policy-making and as such may eschew such concerns at will. Such is the nature of monopolists.

Dr. Eduardo Villanueva has already made the case for Open Source and Free Software (and against Microsoft) in his efforts to standardize information technology in Perú. Although his logic is impeccable and applies as well here in the US as in his own country, our policymakers have chosen according to a different standard: One that clearly demonstrates how Capitalism has become nearly synonymous with Democracy in this cynical age of profit, taxation, and Military-Industrial expansionism.

Villanueva's argument is founded in the milieu of standardizing information storage and retrieval, and yet it would be even further bolstered if software was opened up as a force for positive achievement. In the US companies focus all their energy on making discrete box-units and pushing them in the marketplace for profit. As such, most software has - at its heart - a subliminal profit motive. This is why there is such a saturation of unoriginality, and why otherwise-promising software engineers quickly burn out on the Application Farm.

Free Software aims at a higher goal, which is to evolve a stable infrastructure that remains open for all to contribute and share. The government is simply a caretaker of our wealth, and must utilize that wealth for the benefit of the citizens first. For our representatives, propping up Microsoft is no different from buying a hot sports franchise. They can hold it up and say "Look how we're supporting the strongest innovators and world-shakers in the Capitalist universe! The American Dream of unbounded wealth lives on!" Meanwhile the programmers and designers work on their pet projects, waiting and hoping that one day they'll be invited to the party.

Even though they wouldn't like anyone there.

Alas, it's all very sad and pathetic in a way. The Beltway Haircuts don't have a clue what they're giving up on our behalf, or how in the long run it's going to end up costing all of us. Oh well, the future isn't what it used to be. As long as Bill Gates is happy, I guess we should be too.