1:35 p.m.
Sean wrote:
Bryan,
It is not a political agenda or radical to have concluded that open source
is a good thing.
Open source is a _very_good_ thing. The idea of the community bonding
together in the hope of establishing something for the good of everyone
is very noble. But there is a fine line between people or entities
_choosing_ and it being _mandated_. You have to be very cautious.
One company that will continually receive my praise is Red Hat because
it understand the value of _choosing_ to share. And they are a "do as I
do" instead of a "do as I say" type of entity. It makes it very easy to
point to Red Hat and say -- "see, there's an example!"
Therefore, it is not radical or political to advocate for it as a
preference
over closed-source solutions.
Agreed. But some people go beyond that. They don't want to stop and
understand the other side of the coin. They think of Microsoft or the
worst example, not realizing there are very good companies in between.
They may not be open source, or only partially open source, but they are
dedicated to open standards. People will always differ, but as long as
everyone can inter-operate, that's ideal.
Branding someone a radical just because they advocate for one
solution
over another is just plain nonsense.
No, not *1* solution, but *1* _outlaw_ of another, or federal preference
of one. It's a very fine line. Freedom has to be choice. Community
has to be choice. Again, it's a very fine line.
Let's not worry too much about being viewed as "community
radicals";
Why not? It happens all-the-time. Personally, I run into it all-the-
time. I'm arguing for Freedomware (open source, open standards by
choice) solutions, and then I get shot down because people lump my
concepts in with the Commuware (open source, open standards by mandate)
fundamentalists.
By not taking the time to differentiate Commerceware/Hostageware from
Standardware/Sourceware, you're going the same thing in reverse. There
is this absolutist radicalism on _both_ sides.
[ And yes, these terms are terms of my own creation. But I haven't seen
a better set -- other than the 1-dimensional "open" v. "proprietary"
sides that doesn't do much to expose the lack of understanding in both
directions. ]
lets just keep making the best open source solutions we know how.
I agree very much so. But that doesn't mean by tearing down the whole
institution of IP -- or just the portion that affects us.
Those who see the benefits will follow; those who don't, will do
something else.
In the majority of cases, especially with commodity concepts and ideas,
open source is the ideal. But sometimes, especially in an area with
limited development by the community, especially with new concepts,
things aren't so commodity.
In that case, we can either hope someone will release open standards
until the concepts become commodity or open source endeavors mature, or
we're stuck with proprietary standards and everyone loses. No one has a
right to every idea as it is thought of, but we can appreciate those who
care to share it, even when it is still fresh.
Especially when the industry is still maturing, and there is a lot at
stake in products -- especially when products themselves are obsoleted
not only after the moment they are conceived.
In the end, there is very little value to the open source community
in
supporting an infestation of binary-hacks into the O/S,
You don't have to support it -- not one finger. But you do have to
understand why others might want it. That's what the term "freedom to
choose" means.
no matter how much you personally believe in the functionality they
add.
And *I* will decide that for myself. We should let others do the same.
Sometimes there is nothing more dangerous than someone saying "we know
what's better for you." As much as I may _agree_ with you, I have to
step back and realize that _choice_ much be preserved, even when I don't
agree with Microsoft or others.
Alan Cox wrote:
Nobody has a right to "own" ideas. Al the countries that
have patents do so
because they recognized the need to make a pact between the people and the
creator and to distort both markets and natural order in order to foster
progress (in theory).
No I'm just pointing out that the evil federal mandates include good things 8)
Yes, as they are necessary.
In fact, if someone wants to mandate "open standards," I'm all for it.
The problem is when someone decides that "open source" is always better.
In many, many cases, yes. But not always.
Especially not when someone is willing to pay for an implementation that
might not be so commodity in idea, at least not at first.
But this is getting off topic so I'll shut up
Well, sometimes I can be a little "radical" in my ideas too, I'll admit
that. I'm sure some of my American Libertarian-oriented views probably
make various people sick. But I don't think I'm too far from ESR.
My biggest fear is to see Linux mandated. It's one thing to standardize
on it as a consumer -- even as the federal government (thinking as a
consumer). It's another, very scare thing to see it legislated
(thinking as a regulator).
As much as I would never vote Ralph Nader, he hit it on the nose when he
said the US federal government should think more as a consumer, than as
a regulator when it comes to Microsoft. We must remember not to
demonize the entire commercial software industry as Microsoft.
Even if that is a popular way to demonizing something we don't agree
with -- use the worst case as an example. It expenses a lot of people
and companies "caught in the middle."
--
Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith(a)ieee.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you
to be anything but richer than you. Any tax rate that penalizes them
will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below
them). Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele-
mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism.
So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work. ;->