Linked by David Adams on Tue 5th Aug 2008 21:16 UTC, submitted by pas de calais
Terry Hancock offers a detailed dissection of the critical difference between power and freedom when it comes to understanding why Microsoft and GNU/Linux respectively are playing different games - and freedom is the only game in town for the free software.
Read the full story at Freesoftware Magazine
Thread beginning with comment 325905
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-07-13
But that was more along the lines of MS having the 'right' to complain. They definitely have a beef with the movement and the various legal rulings that have put MS at a disadvantage to its competitors.
The disadvantage is only relative to the current situation (overwhelming power due to a monopoly situation). The legal rulings are conscious decisions by governments to try and preserve some competition - which has declined enormously in IT relative to the situation 20 years ago.
To put it in a political context. Can you think of any 'free' countries that also desire power and influence in the world? The answer is no.
Yes! All of them do, although perhaps it is too subtle for some to recognise since they tend to use 'soft power' these days. If you watch the shenanigans in the World Trade Organisation you would realise just how much brutal wrestling goes on behind the scenes, even between "allies". Although the hordes that only get news from the MSN homepage are unlikely to ever become aware of this (mostly since they don't care which, is their right).
Edited 2008-08-06 19:04 UTC
Member since:2006-01-10
So perhaps I should have clarified that much.Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-10
I agree 100% with this article.
Might seem strange as I agreed with the MS article yesterday 'MS menaced by open source'. But that was more along the lines of MS having the 'right' to complain. They definitely have a beef with the movement and the various legal rulings that have put MS at a disadvantage to its competitors.
In this article I agree with it. Mostly in that open source is about freedom. And that should be the prime importance. Market share and others are not measures of success for the open source movement. Those seeking to monetize the process and create market share are inevitably going against freedom.
To put it in a political context. Can you think of any 'free' countries that also desire power and influence in the world? The answer is no. The two goals are incompatible. This does not mean you cannot be a successful country while remaining free. It does mean you cannot seek to dominate the world or use your power unjustly.