more...
M
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 17:22:43 +1000 (EST)
From: Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: john courtneidge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: econ-lets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of
computing
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, john courtneidge wrote:
> To: "Quakers (Britain Yearly Meeting) online meeting place"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: econ-lets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Response trimmed to econ-lets only. If you wish to post it back to the
other lists to which I'm not subscribed, please feel free)
> Friends, all - for your entertainment/astonishment/whatever
Hi John. This is indeed an interesting post, with which I rather agree
on a level of sentiment, but I feel I must respond to a couple of issues
of fact, perception, and projection, raised by its author:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (heiko)
[..]
> and is suddenly valued at $6.4 Billion. All Red Hat have done is package
> Linux, the free and open source software programmes made by volunteers
> across the world and charged for it. What does this signify?
In part it signifies that many people would rather pay someone to box up
a set of CDROMS, than spend maybe a hundred hours on the net downloading
the latest 'free' distribution :) and in another part it signifies that
the current insane prices for stocks with 'e-' or 'i-' in front of their
names is merely a huge bubble, just waiting to be pricked.
> For those who don't know, Linux is an operating system that works by
> providing all the "source codes" for all programmes that run on it, so
> there are no secrets, errors can be corrected immediately and development
> has no limits. Unlike private copyrighted source codes of commercial
> companies. In a word Linux can be made to run any computer operation you
> can imagine, and an infinite variety you cannot yet thing of, AND IT IS
> FREE.
As are FreeBSD, OpenBSD or NetBSD, other open-source UNIX-like operating
systems that are based on a (once) free public release of the University
of California at Berkeley's source code. Linux is getting all the press
admittedly, in fact it's the only one that most media people know about.
> The Financial Times carried a major article today August 13 1999, p 14
> asking whether co-operative made software can defeat Microsoft, and
> concludes yes..!
>
> According to the United Nations Human Development Report 1999 Linux
> "Apache" programme on servers now runs over 50% of all web servers
> world-wide, and the FT reports 70% of e-mail is sent on Linux "Send Mail".
This is just misleading. Apache was not developed by, for or on Linux;
it's an open collaboration alright, but was developed for UNIX systems
in general, and has been 'ported' to many Unices, plus OS/2 and others.
And Sendmail has been moving most of the world's email for at least
twice as long as Linux has existed, or was even thought of; it too runs
on all UNIX-like systems. The statement above suggests that Linux is
the operating system used by these >50% of web servers running Apache,
and the 70% of mail servers running sendmail, which is patently untrue.
This is not to denigrate Linux in any way, it's one of a number of fine
open-source operating systems, but serves to illustrate the massive hype
surrounding Linux that has been generated by ignorant mainstream media,
and if you've represented the UN report accurately, ignorant UN people :)
> In other words the Internet is being run by co-operative endeavour, nay by
> the communist ideals that Marx spoke of "from each according to his
> ability, to each according to his needs".
To invoke Marx here is to draw a very long bow indeed. Familiarity with
open source communities suggests a more sanguine approach to guessing at
peoples' motivations for being involved with open source development.
There's an element of community, for sure, but there's plenty of ego and
oneupmanship involved too. And software developers, as a 'class' are
far from a left-wing sort of mob. Most are, it must be remembered, rich
people by any world standards, merely by possessing the necessary tools.
There are of course notable exceptions, some highly altruistic people
sharing their gifts for the good of humanity or the ecosphere, who are
developing free software to those ends - but they're a small minority.
> Thank God!..because the implications of continuing and extending the
> domination of private ownership of software managing the Internet are too
> horrific to contemplate.
Another misconception. While Microsoft may currently dominate mass
markets for home and office desktop computers, through sheer marketing,
it's been far from successful in penetrating server markets, which were
all UNIX before Microsoft was even started in the late seventies, and
largely remains so today. Some percentage of large servers will be
Linux systems, but more are Sun/Solaris, various BSD, and other UNIX.
Even Microsoft use UNIX, not NT, servers for big services like Hotmail
(a FreeBSD sytem) and at one stage, even its own Microsoft Network!
> But what does this mean for co-operatives?
>
> First it means the rebirth of co-operatives on a high tech basis can defeat
> multinationals, second that the Unions, Co-operatives and Labour movement
> must promote co-operative software development, e-commerce and computing
> operations, with HARD CASH. A little investment by the Government in these
> areas, even if only £10-100 million in the UK for example, could destroy
> Microsoft's position in the server market and create open source core
> programmes to serve the whole world.
Now here's where I think you're plain misguided. The reason open source
software is at last coming into its own (ie, publicly) is very largely
_because_ there's been no bureaucratic involvement by any such bodies,
or until recently, by companies like RedHat. Involvement of government
in the open source movement would at best be ineffective, and at worst
hugely damaging, particulary if it diverted resources now freely given.
There's no NEED to get into this competitive model promoted by the likes
of Microsoft. In fact, such is anaethma to most of the people involved,
who as you say are working cooperatively, and not by the behest of some
committee/s. Descending to Microsoft's sick view of the world in order
to 'defeat' it is just more of the same, in my view, and wasted effort.
> No doubt Blair and co and already planning to announce something like this
> investment in co-operatives any day
[.. ? ..]
> controlling the world economy by their stifling stranglehold on the
> development of software do they?
If government - or indeed committee thinking even among cooperatives -
attempt to 'do anything' about open source software, beyond getting on
with using it to solve real problems in real human communities, then it
will be a huge (and unneccessary) waste of valuable resources. The
thinking of governments and of large corporations is not so different,
whereas the sort of thinking that has given rise to the open source
movement - which is over 30 years old, please remember, and in fact was
the original, only method of software distribution before these greedy
companies got in on the act with their 'software patents' and the like -
is totally averse, and hopefully immune, to committee-designed software.
> Co-operative or communist operations are winning the high tech efficiency
> war, this we must shout from the rooftops and scream outside number 10, who
> knows someone may listen.
Well I sincerely hope people like Blair will remain blissfully (and
characteristically) ignorant, and so do no damage by trying to interfere
with a very useful process that is already picking up good momentum :)
In short, operating systems and network development is in good (read
anarchically widely distributed) hands, and worrying that Microsoft will
rule the world is like worrying that everyone will buy (only) Ford cars.
Now, USING this stuff for applications useful to the advancement of the
cooperative movement, decentralised currencies, and critical cessation
of the destruction of the ecosphere is another matter .. go for it!
Cheers, Ian
