On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 20:04 -0600, Stephen Shaw wrote: > I'm writing a paper for my ethics and values class at UVSC and my topic > is Linux. The approach that I'm taking is Open Source: Restoring > Freedom. The idea is that Microsoft has stolen our freedom to choose > and that with all the things that surround Linux and the Open Source > community we regain that freedom of choose. ie apps, OS, etc. I was > wondering what others thought about this.
Two suggestions: 1) Never once use the words Microsoft, Windows, Gates, etc. It'll make you sound like a useless fanboy. The problem is not Microsoft, it is proprietary software. Once upon a time, IBM, not Microsoft was the great evil. Then, as now, the sin was trying to control customers instead of serve them. My opinion of IBM has done a complete 180 over that last 15 years. The way things are going for MSFT right now, I expect to say the same about MSFT in another 15 years. 2) You can't tell the story I think you want to tell by only speaking of Open Source. Ultimately, OSS was presented and championed based on quality. Free/libre software, on the other hand, is about Freedom. Open Source is a brilliant marketing label, but the most revolutionary part of Linux is the freedom. You can't have true Open Source Software without software freedom. You can't have true "open source" science without scientific freedom. Etc. There's no need to be anal like Stallman, insisting on terms like GNU/Linux and rejection of the label Open Source, but be clear on the concepts and history. -- Stuart Jansen e-mail/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't using enough of it." - Chris Maden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
.===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
