Are you advocating total adoption of open source, or a balance where Microsoft software co-exists with open source software ? I am an ardent open source advocate, but let's not underestimate the dominance of Microsoft in the IT world.Balance is the way to go. OSS is not simply software. It's also a community. That community is composed, at the core, of programmers. These programmers started by wanting something that worked for themselves, was built by themselves, and included access to source code that made their work as programmers easier. OSS is good for programmers when they work because it reduces the effort involved in building a solution.
Somewhere along the line, (actually, at the very beginning) a decision was taken that all software *must* be free. This had a positive influence in ensuring source availability, and enabled OSS to gain wider usage and adoption, based on the cost advantages and superior functionality/customizability for web servers. Apache and Linux drove the adoption of OSS in the enterprise and soon the stability and security advantages of Linux caused people to do more with it.
Free software GUIs, browsers, databases and a whole slew of other packages emerged and opened the possibility for a free desktop. People like myself, used this software exclusively and managed to get work done. However, the mass market, the vast majority of software consumers have and continue to choose to use (and pirate) proprietary software.
Regardless of the benefits of OSS to society and programmers, it will not have a large impact if it remains on the fringe of the mainstream computer use. Massive amounts of energy and advocacy are causing people to learn that there is an alternative method of computing, but on the desktop, where by far the majority of the market resides, there is still little adoption beyond that of a few hard core activists, advocates and programmers.
Looking into the future, by 2006/2007, the free Linux desktop would have evolved to exceed the capabilities of the Windows XP desktop. While this is a laudable achievement, it is important to realize the Windows XP is technology that was released in 2002 (or thereabouts). We are talking of a five year period in which this happened. The final outcome depends heavily on Windows Longhorn and Microsoft is keenly aware of this.
I predict that Longhorn will be a major leap forward for MS. OSS is really good at cloning existing proprietary software but is less good at creating an entirely new vision. In a broad sense, Linux is essentially a clone of Unix (which was first developed in the early 70s), KDE can be seen as a Windows clone, GNOME can be seen as a MacOS clone.
By 2010, Linux and the free software suite would have reached a stage of 'good enough' that will make it suitable for mainstream usage. By this time, Microsoft would have made its great leap forward, while retaining backward compatibility for Windows 2000/Windows XP applications.
The gap between the two efforts will result in a win/loss situation for Microsoft. If MS pulls ahead far and fast enough, it will win. If it does not make the next version of Windows a great leap forward that will take OSS another five years to react to, it will lose.
Linux is catching up to Microsoft's current technology quite quickly, and exceeds the capabilities of Windows in several areas already. But Windows is not a static target, it moves, and will move much faster with the threat of Linux driving Microsoft. Applications will be increasingly ported to Linux, and for all practical purposes, the two systems will be usable for any mainstream computer user.
The inevitable outcome will be a decrease in Microsoft market share and revenue, coupled with an increase in Linux market share without a corresponding increase in revenues on the Linux side. There lies the weakness of OSS, in that without revenue being generated for the producers of software, some producers will turn towards a proprietary software model for releasing their products.
We will have two desktop systems and there will be more choice in the market. It is too early to tell where the balance of power and functionality will lie, and it is therefore prudent to take a dual strategy. Which ever side wins, we should be prepared to take full advantage of the outcome. Developers and users in Ghana should be able to work with both systems. The ideal platform for this is the Microsoft .NET platform, especially because it also offers the opportunity for developers working in different languages to produce software that interoperates seamlessly.
The MS/OSS war is being waged by people not in Africa, who do not have Africa as their concern. Africa does not have the developer community or developer resources to play an effective part in this war. Rather, Africa should focus on building up a developer community, so that we can play a role in either sphere of influence.
The goal for Africa should be technologization. The adoption of computer software technology, used for local benefit, resulting in local profits will only take place if we build a developer community. If the local benefit comes as cost reduction to near zero, it will hamper the African ability to develop a software industry. If it comes as software development in the proprietary arena as well as the OSS arena, it will result in both cost reduction and local profits.
Our aim should then be to reduce technology costs and at the same time, replace monies that were leaving the continent, with monies that remain within the continent. This requires a balanced strategy rather than to adopt one side or the other as the primary position.
To adopt either side blindly and wholesale is a mistake. We must instead play both sides to our strategic advantage, and should end up releasing applications for both systems - cross platform applications are the way to go if one is to avoid the risk of backing the wrong horse.
We, the Linux community in Accra are leaning too far towards a pure OSS only world, and our government is leaning towards a pure Microsoft world. Perhaps this already, indicates that we are moving towards a balance. In this context, one can read the recent MS investment as shifting the balance in their favour.
As always, Microsoft makes the right decisions, and this is how they got to where they are now. I respect them immensely for that, and am frustrated by the fact that our community and our government seem to be incapable of thinking and acting as smart as they do, because the end result will be determined by the relative pace of innovation on both sides as well as the strategic directions taken. This reasoning extends beyond the software sphere to normal governance, relationships between North and South etc.
We are where we are because we chose the wrong directions and priorities. We continue to choose the wrong directions and priorities. The result is simple, Africa (has missed or will miss) the opportunity offered by the information age and we shall become poorer than we are now as the result of this.
The only hope is to move to cross platform solutions so that if we do pick the wrong fork in the road, we can quickly and easily shift to the right fork. Otherwise, the amount of time we will lose will be our death knell. Betting in the right direction will become an advantage. East Africa (Uganda) is betting on Linux, while West Africa (Ghana) is betting on Windows.
My personal opinion is that Uganda is making the right choice and Ghana needs to shift to a dual strategy.
-- G.
--------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
