“Open source is supposed to be about freedom. Unfortunately, certain advocates have lost sight of that goal. People should be free to use software which best fits their needs, whether or not it adheres to a particular programming philosophy. I suggest that open source proponents spend their time crafting interoperability guidelines rather than creating a protected environment, which artificially boosts open-source adoption while hiding it from the full rigors of competition.” Read the editorial at ZDNet.
Going Overboard on Open Source?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
…100 % with the article. If open-source is better, it will be used sooner or later. On the other hand I don’t think anything is wrong with using closed-source software when it makes sense.
Another thing, not mentioned in the article, is that nobody has to use 100% open-source OR 100% closed-source software. A decent mix of both can be even better.
Open Source is about freedom. People should be entirely free to use the software they want to use. However, a lot of open source users (me included) feel that certain properties of the software (namely its open source-ness) outweigh other properties of the software (how it interoperates with proprietary software). A lot of people feel that making OSS software too easy to use in a proprietary environment cheapens the idea behind Open Source, which is, and shall remain, that software should be Free. True, a goal of Open Source is to make good software, that is not questioned. But, the primary goal remains to make Free software, and if the former goal conflicts with the latter, a lot of Open Source proponents would rather see the second principle upheld. Its not about taking the freedom away from people to use a mix of proprietory and Open Source software. Its about making sure that a pure Open Source environment can be maintained for those who want it, and that Open Source software remains viable in the face of proprietory competition.
So easy for the white man to twist the word freedom.
You may choose between closed air and open air.
Or between open seas and closed seas.
Or between an open internet and a closed internet.
Or between open source and closed source.
But it is only the ‘open’ that is truly free, not the closed.
It is the white man’s way to trade freedom for money.
Ability to make a profit is not freedom.
From the 1927 Grand Council of American Indians
“The white people, who are trying to make us over into their image, they want us to be what they call “assimilated,” bringing the Indians into the mainstream and destroying our own way of life and our own cultural patterns. They believe we should be contented like those whose concept of happiness is materialistic and greedy, which is very different from our way.
We want freedom from the white man rather than to be intergrated. We don’t want any part of the establishment, we want to be free to raise our children in our religion, in our ways, to be able to hunt and fish and live in peace. We don’t want power, we don’t want to be congressmen, or bankers….we want to be ourselves. We want to have our heritage, because we are the owners of this land and because we belong here.
The white man says, there is freedom and justice for all. We have had “freedom and justice,” and that is why we have been almost exterminated. We shall not forget this.”
Our source is our land.
Our land is our source.
Only open land is freedom.
Beware white man with twisted tongue. Freedom to choose closed land is not freedom, but the door to slavery.
C r o w
I live in a small town that used a Microsoft product to create the town’s informational website. The end result, as Microsoft intended was not useable with most browsers and of course worked best with Microsoft’s browser. (gee, what a surprise) So according to the authors thinking I must.
A. Switch operating systems
B. Use Microsoft’s products cause my town’s has now decreed it official by their use of them.
C. Don’t bother visiting the website my tax dollars went to create.
D. Drive to City Hall for any information I might need?
or
E. Fight to get public agency to pull their heads out of their collective rearends and use software THAT FOLLOWS STANDARDS IN AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MANNER.
Geez, now thats a revolutionary idea.
The author was discussing a bill in the California legislature, the “Digital Software Security Act,” that would make it ILLEGAL for any state agency to procure ANY kind of software other than open-source. Open-source is great, the author said, but to make it MANDATORY removes it from competition with proprietary software. If Oracle, proprietary behemoth that it is, really does serve an agency’s database needs better than the closest open-source equivalent, then forcing the open-source software on that agency does it a disservice.
Microsoft and Windows weren’t even mentioned in the article.
If Oracle, proprietary behemoth that it is, really does serve an agency’s database needs better than the closest open-source equivalent, then forcing the open-source software on that agency does it a disservice.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Of Oracle is 10% faster, and 10% easier to administer, does it still serve the agency’s needs better than the OpenSource product, which is 100% more free? I’m not necessarily saying that Oracle isn’t ultimately the better choice, but I hope that people realize that the very fact that a piece of software is Open Source is a big advantage, just as increased speed or ease of use is an advantage.
People should still have the right to choose it. It seems awfully paternalistic for certain people to dictate the rest of the world how best to be free. Advocacy is one thing. Advocate until the cows come home the merits of open source. Tell the world about how much money is saved, or how much more flexibility open source grants to its adopters. However, DO NOT tell someone how to best express their freedom. That violates the very principle you claim to espouse.
Some think alcohol is evil. However, I bet few in this forum think that it should be legally banned. Advocate why you think open source is SUPERIOR to closed source product, and try to convince as many as possible that you are right. Do not try to prevent people from buying anything but open source product.
Freedom implies the ability to make good AND bad choices. Living in a post-modern world where truth is subject to debate, the collective will of the majority defines what is best, not the whims of an elite.
I’m posting to this forum because ZDNet had a electroshock therapy over the weekend, and their Talkback forums seem to be suffering amnesia.
Rayiner:
If the only difference between Oracle and the free software is a mere 10% difference in speed and in ease of administration, then the agency has good reason to prefer the free software. Ten-percent improvements aren’t usually very compelling as selling points. On the other hand, if Oracle happens to have a particular feature that isn’t (yet) in the free software, a feature that the agency depends on — or if Oracle should be 500% faster, and so easy to administer that your dog could do it — then the agency should be free to shell out the money for Oracle (and make their case to the taxpayers if they question the decision). (This is just theoretical — I really don’t know a thing about database software
)
So I agree with the article that open-source software is a wonderful thing, but trying to make it illegal to use any other kind of software is ridiculous.
On the other hand, maybe this bill is a crude attempt to get the state to STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON SO MUCH SOFTWARE THEY DON’T NEED. We all know governments enjoy spending tax revenues
“…any victory for open source achieved through deprivation of the user’s right to choose would indeed be a betrayal of the principles that free software and open source have stood for.”
Couldn’t have said it better. What ever happened to Adamist Capitalism and free will? Use what does the job best and tell big brother to get the HELL out of your life. These jokers are no better then Sen. Hollings (aka Senator Disney aka Fog Horn Leg Horn) and his foney baloney SSSCA/CBDTPA. Intel/Microsoft/RIAA/MPAA with the Palladium Chip/DMCA/CBDTPA on one side and the OSS looneys on the other side with the Digital Software Security Act on the other. WHY MUST EVERYONE TRY AND TAKE OUR FREEDOMS AWAY?
well i guess if i shackle you to the oars and dont tell you how the shackles work its wrong…
but if i explain to you.. in detail… every little piece of how the shackles work before i clamp them on then its ok?
wake up people. taking away people’s choices goes COMPLETELY against the very freedom you claim to want to obtain
and just because someone can cleverly talk you into believing its a good thing doesnt make it so…
i hear most cult leaders have quite a way with words too ;o)
Well said. Forcing a group such as the government to use opensource is about as anti freedom as you can get. Also for those who say “but it’s my money” well it’s my money to, there are those who do not agree with you open source agended, why should their wants get crushed by yours? I don’t care for the Government using MS stuff, but I don’t want them using software supported by volenteers around the world plus other problems I have with OS. Like said above, you can hail what you see as vertues of Open Source but telling people they have to use it is most certainly not freedom. I think many open source people loose what freedom really is. Even things like the GPL are anti freedom if you take a step back and look at it. People will always have differant views on this, and each should be aloud to have them, and no side should become the choosen one.
Even things like the GPL are anti freedom if you take a step back and look at it.
>>>>>>>>>
That’s a misguided idea. The GPL takes away certain rights (the right to copy without opensourcing your changes) in order to perserve certain rights (the right for the community to benifet from all work on a code base). Its just like in society where there is a limitation in what you can do so other people don’t have their rights trampled. And nobody said the GPL was about total, complete, unrestrained freedom. The GPL is about creating a freer software world, nothing more, nothing less.
I think people are looking at this whole issue in entirely the wrong way. The legislative branch of government because of its continuity and low turn over effectively acts an immortal person. The executive branch conversely is a massively hierarchical structure capable of acting quickly (at least relative to the rest of the government). One of the jobs of the legislative is to put parameters around the executive branch so that the short term interests which the executive tends to reflect do not override the long term interests of the state.
The State of California like many states purchases large scale systems for its various branches. Like any other entity purchasing and customizing commercial software to create a long term operational practice; they face the issue of dependency. Its entirely possible that the State of California may have a situation where the cheapest, fastest most reasonable solution to a problem is to buy a commercial package. However what the legislature is discussing is whether the more important issue of independence should outweigh cheapest, fastest resolution of the immediate problem. That most certainly is within the scope of the legislature. The State of California like any other large entity has seen enormous wealth transferred from their hands to the hands of commercial software vendors in exchange for products that they are unsatisfied with – and a great deal of that money has not only left the government but left the state. Its not unreasonable for the state to determine that their long term interests are better served by purchasing open source software and performing perhaps development in addition to customization but in exchange paying no licensing costs, keeping the money within California, and being able to distribute the product as they see fit.
Further the legislature is exactly the branch of government that should be considering long term policies for the state government. There is no loss of freedom, any more than when the board of directors of a corporation determines policy that effects manager, directors and VPs.
John Caroll :
Why do you state (or imply), at the begining of your article, that free software movement goal is to undermine sales-based software makers ?
Could you point out some evidence of this ?
These jokers are no better then Sen. Hollings (aka Senator Disney aka Fog Horn Leg Horn) and his foney baloney SSSCA/CBDTPA.
Speaking of South Carolina, note what happened to our Department of Motor Vehicles when they switched from a UNIX-based system to a Windows system (for only $40 MILLION of our tax money) at all their offices just this month. Now the notoriously long waiting lines take at least one hour LONGER! Also, police dispatchers can no longer run a check on a tag number!
A local radio jock was driving in Greenville when he heard a radio preacher ask, “Do you know where you will spend eternity?” He said the scary part was that he was driving to the DMV at the time.
The problem is not that business owners should not have the right to purchase commercial software. The issue is more whether the public sectors and governments should by proxy force the taxpayers to use commercial software. When your access to public information is filtered through software from companies like Microsoft in the form of .doc and .xls files or through non-standards compliant websites created by such products as Frontpage then government is dictating your freedom of choice in the software products you use.
Government and the public funded sector DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT and should be forced to use the least expensive and most standards compliant software available. If the software comes from a commercial entity such as Microsoft then that company should be forced to open their file formats to public view so that ALL possible competitors can be allowed to compete on an even playing field with no advantage given because of closed file formats or proprietary non-standard compliant products.
If a company is unwilling to open their file formats than they should be barred from any bidding for publically funded agencys software needs.
While I agree that file formats and such that the government uses should be open standard formats i don’t agree with all you say. I do not belive the government should have to use the cheapest thing. The whole lowest bidder wins in the government needs to go. Yes in idea it’s good but it leads to low quailty that can cost more in the end. This is not to say they should get the most expensive thing ether cause price in no way dictates quality. But currently if the US governemt was forced to use the cheapest which would be free (as in price) software in many places they would be using very poor apps. Also even though the software is is free the person using it wage is not. If a person using it is paid 50k a year having to pay out say 2k in software every 3 years is not to bad if he/she works much faster with it. More money is to be saved by worker efficency and comfort than by inital software cost cutting.
Now even though MS may not be the best example it is not a completely bad thing that thing that the Government spends money on their software, at least it is with a US company and creates some cash flow through the system. Now how much gets back to the gov from MS taxes i don’t know. But having something causing some flow of money is not a bad thing. Not saying this is a total reason to buy the software but is somehting to think about. I think having the goverment use Windows but keap data in open formats is fine, i also think it would be nice if MS would just give the US copies of windows. This won’t happen, but since giving the US one copy of winXP pro multi user to install on all the machines in the government would cost MS nothing it would be a nice gesture.
Current laws in many places do not allow for local governments to purchase software from convicted antitrust (gee before you say the MS trial is not over yet-they have been convicted the only phase left is the penality phase) imposing the current laws (that are right) already many local governments should be brought to court about any purchases of MS products. That said I am not for imposing that local governments must purchase Open Source software. I do believe any funding going into software development from tax payers money is only fair to ensure the end product is Open Source, but not all purchases. On the other hand buying software from a convicted Monopoly is ILLEGAL for a reason!
Rayiner Hashem: Of Oracle is 10% faster, and 10% easier to administer, does it still serve the agency’s needs better than the OpenSource product, which is 100% more free? I’m not necessarily saying that Oracle isn’t ultimately the better choice, but I hope that people realize that the very fact that a piece of software is Open Source is a big advantage, just as increased speed or ease of use is an advantage.
Rayinder, just say you could spend 20 thousand bucks on Oracle, or free PostgreSQL. You choose the latter. But in within 10 years, you loose 20 thousand hours of productivity because of the speed. You also loose 40 thousand hours of time spent to configure the software etc. (These aren’t real numbers). Would I think the 20,000 bucks would be worth it? Hell yes!
I don’t mind using OSS software, as long they give me the best bang for the buck – and time and experience and lack of stress, to me and many others is money too.
David Blomberg: Current laws in many places do not allow for local governments to purchase software from convicted antitrust […]
Geee, that law sounds much more stupid that the anti trust law itself.
“But currently if the US governemt was forced to use the cheapest which would be free (as in price) software in many places they would be using very poor apps.”
Most of the Internet you use is running on “Free” software. I have used both and have far less problems with “Free” software, lower maintenance, no virus issues, no costly “upgrade” ripoffs, stable and no guilty conscience when I am done using it for the day.
“If a person using it is paid 50k a year having to pay out say 2k in software every 3 years is not to bad if he/she works much faster with it. More money is to be saved by worker efficency and comfort than by inital software cost cutting.”
Exactly my point. Your problem is you equate commercial software with productivity and free software with non productivity.
“Now even though MS may not be the best example it is not a completely bad thing that thing that the Government spends money on their software, at least it is with a US company and creates some cash flow through the system.”
Seems to me the Germans said something similar about Hitler during his years in office.
“Now how much gets back to the gov from MS taxes i don’t know.”
Exactly ZERO! According to some reports I have read they have managed to not pay taxes several times through various options manipulations etc.
“I think having the goverment use Windows but keap data in open formats is fine,”
There might be hope for you yet….but then you had to go on and say the following
“i also think it would be nice if MS would just give the US copies of windows. This won’t happen, but since giving the US one copy of winXP pro multi user to install on all the machines in the government would cost MS nothing it would be a nice gesture.”
Nothing like mandating a monopoly through companie sponsored giveaways…eh?!
I think that Anonimous with subject ‘Some of you just don’t get it’ was the closest to the issue.
This is not about how much better commercial software than open-source software. Or how much saving free software does for local budget. It’s about right of citizens to know how the elected government is operating. Up to every bit of it. The software that government is using has to be available to general piblic for viewing. It’s fundamental law that goverment is working openly.
If you admit that goverment can have some secret meetings about something then I guess government can use closed sorce software on those meetings. If there are exceptions of this policy then they should be documented.
>> Most of the Internet you use is running on “Free” software. I have used both and have far less problems with “Free” software, lower maintenance, no virus issues, no costly “upgrade” ripoffs, stable and no guilty conscience when I am done using it for the day. <<
First I in no way said all free software is bad or slow. But you have to face the reality that much of it is no where the level of commercial apps. If you think otherwise you kidding yourself. Also free software does not mean lower maintenace, if anything it tends to require more to get it working. Viruses don’t tend to attack specific apps, but even so there is nothing making a free app more virus safe than others. If you were impling free linux/freebsd/unix software well then thats a bit differant. Mainly in that few virus have been written for those platforms, in time there will be viruses, if linux for example take 95% of the market you can be asured people will write viruses for it. Not all upgrades are ripoffs, and not all are very costly. Far as your stability comment this one again makes you sound like a linux user or similar, winNT 2k XP are plenty stable, day to day office use like most government systems would be used for will have zero issue. And using windows will not leave me or many people with a guilty conscience.
Most commercial apps are better in that people will be more productive with them, companies are trying to make money with them, they have to be good for things like productivity for them to succeed. Yes there are example against this, such as MS office, but it is the defacto standard and is easy to use, people are commfortable with it. I think the government using GP3 would be better, its a solid app, very intuitive and cheaper than office. The user experience is very important in the value of the product, even slight slow downs will cost money in the end. You obviously are one who believes all opensource apps are perfect and better than closed source apps and nothing will change that. You are a person with political issues and fight for Opensource like it’s a religion. Yes there are good opensource apps out there. But there is not avalible what needs to be to switch things like the government to them. I do not want important documents and information being handeling by some software made by bob in his basement last week. I want it to be software with support and acountability. I want to see a companie behind the software used. The idea of using linux in such places scares me way more than using MS windows. Open source does not make something good, close source does not make something good. But right now not everything can be switched to an open source app because much of it is not there yet and may never be.
Also I don’t know where you get of implying i’m a NAZI or the such. Your closer to that then I, you want to see your values forced on a nation and make there be one answer. I want the best option to be openly chosen. And for the last one I said it won’t happen. Your trying to mandade opensource, there is little differance bettween using it cause it’s free verse using Windows if it was free to them.
“I do not want important documents and information being handeling by some software made by bob in his basement last week. I want it to be software with support and acountability. I want to see a companie behind the software used. The idea of using linux in such places scares me way more than using MS windows.”
While I don’t think OSS should be mandated, I have some trouble with your post. Exactly what support have you EVER gotten from MS? Unless I was just the unlucky one, they don’t support anything. Yeah, maybe a big corporate customer will get support, but thier response to bugs and security holes shows me a near total lack of support for thier product. Lets talk about win 95, NT 3.x, NT 4.x, Win 98. Support??? WHERE? MS only supports their software for a few years and then it is thrown in the scrap heap, (where it belongs, but beyond the point). So what you are saying is you would rather trust your important data to a company that MIGHT support you IF you continue to buy more stuff from them?
Good Plan Chief!!!