Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Id like to drag this back to the original topic (now I have some time to deal with it)... Hi Tom, Firstly may I voice agreement with yourself and Andy. This subject has just about run its course so Ill make my answer to your questions my last on this thread - What was their motive for keeping it proprietary ?. There were several motives. Firstly the work was work in progress, as such not suitable for wide non-stakeholder input or modification. In practice this is no different to many early OSS alpha's and ongoing developments kept within core development teams prior to placement online for wide dissemination. Secondly, and Tom as I believe you may have correctly commented in an earlier post, there were also reasons of exposure and publicity. This might be best demonstrated by the type of feedback I received in even raising the topic of emergency procedures on this forum. A lot of people have opinions, informed and otherwise. While it's true that some will back out of discussion when asked to substantiate themselves as we witnessed here... still many voice opinions, engage in protracted discussions and may even be vocal when promoted philosophical approaches differ from their own. None of this is bad; none of it to be discouraged; all of it of value even if just to encourage openness... but it can easily detract a team of limited resources from early development focus. It's just another aspect to manage, and proprietary developments are just one of our management tools. Please remember that just because something starts as proprietary does not mean it must remain this way indefinitely. IMO too many people look for an overnight fix forgetting that real change takes time and patience. Did you consider re-writing that code so that it could be opened ? I'm not sure how we managed to transpose formulae into code but it was a procedural formulae unrelated to computers - so no... being years in development and involving thousands of hours of analysis we lacked the resources to attempt such a task. Again this is just normal practice - Last month I attended a symposium where several Harvard professors compiled input of invited members of the emergency and humanitarian management community's for the purpose of developing emergency leadership analysis. When completed this analysis will be published in scientific journals in (presumably) typical Harvard proprietary format. Obviously I would prefer these publications be Creative Commons available for all for use and modify as we see fit, however this is unlikely in a Harvard publication (another leviathan we need to nurture into cultural change :-) Tom I hope these responses offer some clarification and my apologies if anything I have written previously upsets anyone's sensibilities. I honestly believe my tone and terminology to be no different to that used by many on here, especially when they put the boot into Microsoft, it's staff or the staff of other corporates, however acknowledge how sometimes having such terminologies turned on oneself can be painful. In justification I do tend to view the employees of company's as people no different to you or I and just as deserving of tolerance and respect. Nevertheless I also believe they can be nurtured into cultural change (as discussed on another thread :-) Cheers, Don Cameron ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Don Cameron wrote: Hi again Taran, Being very aware this is becoming a one-to-one; as such potentially inappropriate for a discussion list - may I nonetheless request our moderators continued tolerance and understanding. Hopefully this is of some interest to other readers and some may choose to contribute. Actually, I'm self moderated and see no need to continue this discussion. It's in your interest to defend your decisions for your project. From what I've seen, you're defending what you've done in your project. I've got no ownership issues, so it's not in my interests to change your mind. I've expressed myself quite clearly in the context of your project. If you don't like it, my feelings aren't hurt. Have fun with your proprietary formulae; if I can't critique it and I can't see it then I can have no effect on it. Thus, I have to say that the example you've given cannot be discussed in the context of which I am discussing, and therefore to me it simply does not exist - therefore, I should go on doing other things which are productive. Cheers! -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago [EMAIL PROTECTED] Always looking for contracts! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ Criticize by creating. — Michelangelo ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Don Cameron wrote: No, at risk of repetition my point was to highlight how monetary reasons are not the sole reasons for proprietary developments. This was in direct response to points raised previously in this thread. Understanding (in the context of discussion) really involves relating the comments to the thread. Id like to drag this back to the original topic (now I have some time to deal with it)... Can I just ask Don. IIRC you had to make your code proprietary because it utilised some proprietary code provided by another party, and you (quite rightly) respected their wishes. What was their motive for keeping it proprietary ? and Did you consider re-writing that code so that it could be opened ? Tom. tom brough at blueyonder dot co dot uk ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Hi Dave, A lot of what I think I already wrote in response to Don, but there are some things that I'd like to answer here... Dave A. Chakrabarti wrote: Taran, Thinking about Don's comments in disaster management (a field I know *nothing* about, so feel free to shoot me down on this) I'm inclined to think that public image / press / etc becomes an important factor. If this is a closed process, it is open to criticism only in being a closed process...possibly not something that's going to be dragged out into the media every time something happens. Well, my experience is that everything related to disasters is only brought out when there are actual disasters. That said, public image and press really doesn't matter too much to people who suffer and die during emergencies. It doesn't help their loved ones either. So when it comes to disasters and media, I operate on a different scale... I expect certain things of the press, but I don't expect them to dress the facts in Barbie doll outfits and allow them to have tea in the Barbie house. That is what happens, unfortunately, and the disasters of last year should teach us that. All I have to write is the word 'Katrina', and all manner of thoughts will run through a readers mind. The information out of Katrina largely came out of press releases and those press releases became news. Some news teams did excellent jobs on the ground - outstanding jobs - and brought the humanity of the situation to people in their homes. That's what the press should be doing, I think. And that is good. We need that. We need people understanding the humanity of the situation instead of buzzword-filled press releases (which many bloggers have become horrid mimics of). However, if this is not a closed process, then you will constantly have reporters digging through the formala, publishing statements after tragedies saying If the house had been painted green, the firemen would have charged into the blaze to save the woman ...condemning rescue workers who act within the constraints of the model. This happens anyway, because our media is sensationalist, but if it were linked to a model, a rule-book that says specifically when and how to assess risk, then the result would be an attack on that model itself, no matter what the model was. This would eventually force police forces, fire departments, and other rescue workers to abandon the model completely, because public relations is a *very* big part of their jobs. Yes and no. That sort of information gives points of discussion. Sure, it's going to make some people angry, it will hurt others, but in the future that very discussion can save lives. Academics like clean scenarios. On the ground, in the Emergency Departments and in every first responder situation, things happen which are *supposed* to make their way back to academia and change things. Everyone can be a first responder. I remember seeing an article recently that talked about a person who was in an accident and crawled to the doors of the emergency room, where they died because the ER staff were waiting for an ambulance to come and move the victim indoors. The article was extremely sensationalist, stating that the ER staff didn't budge to help the person because it wasn't in their contract. The ER people should have been crucified for that. It wasn't a broken process that killed people. It was a care for process more than human beings that killed them. But that's the problem when bureaucrats run things. Processes somehow are more important than human lives to some people. And I wonder... how many of the people who write those processes have ever watched a person die? What do I know about ER's? Nothing, except that they made me wait 6 hours in one before giving me three stitches, once. Well, that's supposedly less than the average wait at an emergency room with a non-life threatening problem. The busier the ER, the longer the wait. It's triage, and the rule is simple - if your injury is not life threatening, you are at the bottom of the list and when people come in who do have life threatening issues come in, you move back further. The ERs I worked at/with always had a sign up explaining that. You don't take numbers when you go to an emergency room. It's not a democracy. It's a matter of who needs the help the most. The flip side is that when people have no chance of living, they do not get treated as quickly as the ones who do have a chance. Of course, every hospital has different administrative rules about such things. In the example you mention, the jobs of the ER staff were probably on the line if they did help those people. So they decided to triage personal income against someone's life. It's a fairly dramatic example, but it happens more often than most realize in their every day lives in less dramatic scenes. And the administration, if they defend that policy of only ambulances bringing in patients... well, that's
RE: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Hi again Taran, Being very aware this is becoming a one-to-one; as such potentially inappropriate for a discussion list - may I nonetheless request our moderators continued tolerance and understanding. Hopefully this is of some interest to other readers and some may choose to contribute. You mentioned the basis of the use of proprietary licensing to protect something (snip) No, at risk of repetition my point was to highlight how monetary reasons are not the sole reasons for proprietary developments. This was in direct response to points raised previously in this thread. Understanding (in the context of discussion) really involves relating the comments to the thread. your example being one of shielding society from how the people chosen to be assisted in an emergency (snip) Ummm, again no... My example was that of a third-party developer requiring a continuance of rights when developments are incorporated into newer or other developments (OSS or proprietary). To cite this as shielding society may be seen as manipulative interpretation of the example and perhaps demonstrative of poor understanding of relationships to the topic of discussion. Please Taran - let's limit ourselves to what's written rather than interpretive guesswork. Please feel free to ask if you have a question on anything I have written and time permitting I will reply. I truly hope my answers to your questions thus far demonstrate willingness to discuss this topic in a rational non-flaming manner. So in this spirit, to expand a little on your comments re emergencies... You write that: I've done triage. I've had to make those decisions. Taran I am very interested to learn more of your qualifications and experience in this area. Have you done triage during large-scale disasters or other scenario's involving fatal risk to your team? May we assume that in making this claim (in the context of this discussion) your experience extends to triage during rescue scenario's where your team members were placed in direct and immediate threat... So may I respectfully ask... Acknowledging that all rescue professionals have lost disaster victims at one time or another... Have you ever lost one of your team members? (or perhaps just a serious injury?) - If so, were you the primary decision-maker and person accountable? (Incident Controller?) - Regardless of losses, how do you manage decision processes throughout your organisational hierarchy? (ICS, NIMS or something else?) - What tools do you use to negate the inherent dangers of guesswork in assessing rescue priorities? (Are these tools proprietary and maintained in-house, or do you open and publicise your tools to the world at large for assessment and comment prior to deployment? - if so where can I find them on the 'net?) - How do you prepare for, protect and preserve the psychological welfare of your team members? (aspects of privacy, accountability, emotional preparedness, effective CISM etc.) As a triage professional you must agree how it would be foolhardy in the extreme to assess the impact of any DV or disaster procedural management tool on society without firstly assessing the impact on your own rescue and response teams... And acknowledging how these tools are all work in progress... Just when and how do you open them fully to broad public assessment? (verifiable examples please) Cheers, Don ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
RE: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Taran Rampersad notes: Secret formulas like this bother me because they are secret. Hi again Taran, Something of an exaggeration to call something unpublicised secret, however yes, proponents of full disclosure will argue that anything unknown should be knowable by anyone - presumably it is an offence for Mitsubishi and Ford etc. to make the code in the CDI ignition of motor vehicles proprietary... Or the code that keys the world's nuclear arsenals proprietary... All interesting stuff, but something of a diversion from our original discourse. The point of which being that reasons for proprietary developments are not (as you suggest), always monetary. Other factors are at play, and even at the most fundamental, not all proprietary developers are commercial entities (many individuals, NPO's and Govt's develop proprietary software!). In moving away from this point may I suggest we have found consensus. Cheers, Don ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Taran, Thinking about Don's comments in disaster management (a field I know *nothing* about, so feel free to shoot me down on this) I'm inclined to think that public image / press / etc becomes an important factor. If this is a closed process, it is open to criticism only in being a closed process...possibly not something that's going to be dragged out into the media every time something happens. However, if this is not a closed process, then you will constantly have reporters digging through the formala, publishing statements after tragedies saying If the house had been painted green, the firemen would have charged into the blaze to save the woman ...condemning rescue workers who act within the constraints of the model. This happens anyway, because our media is sensationalist, but if it were linked to a model, a rule-book that says specifically when and how to assess risk, then the result would be an attack on that model itself, no matter what the model was. This would eventually force police forces, fire departments, and other rescue workers to abandon the model completely, because public relations is a *very* big part of their jobs. I remember seeing an article recently that talked about a person who was in an accident and crawled to the doors of the emergency room, where they died because the ER staff were waiting for an ambulance to come and move the victim indoors. The article was extremely sensationalist, stating that the ER staff didn't budge to help the person because it wasn't in their contract. What do I know about ER's? Nothing, except that they made me wait 6 hours in one before giving me three stitches, once. But the contract these employees were held to, and the fact that they upheld it, was targeted in this article. If this were a disaster management model, it would crucified in the same way. And police forces and firefighters may have more to lose in PR than an emergency room. Just my $0.02... Dave. --- Dave A. Chakrabarti Projects Coordinator CTCNet Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] (708) 919 1026 --- Taran Rampersad wrote: Don Cameron wrote: Taran Rampersad asks: Perhaps you could tell us who insisted that some of your code be proprietary? Hi Taran, Great to hear from you again and I hope you are well - May I focus on your query separately to the main thread because the question is legitimate however I think something of a tangent... Just to offer mild correction, I did not state that anyone insisted that some of my code be proprietary, what I in fact wrote was: The formulae was itself proprietary and used with the permission of the authors. It was a condition placed on me that the formulae not be reverse-engineered - a not-so-subtle difference as I'm sure you will agree :-) The reasons for this, in fact the reasons for any code being made proprietary are just as demonstrative of the freedoms we all enjoy as OSS. We all have the freedom to disclose (OSS), we all have the freedom to with-hold (proprietary). I will never tell you about the pillow-talk between myself and my wife late at night :-) This is my freedom to with-hold; my freedom for proprietary content. A basic human right. OK, the example is a bit over the top... Nonetheless the point is valid. It certainly is both over the top - which makes it valid. So leaving the door open for that is important - I don't disagree. Personally, the last thing I want is a committee deciding what I am too fragile to know about, but then again - my perspective is over the top. And of course, that makes it valid as well. Secret formulas like this bother me because they are secret. I've done triage. I've had to make those decisions. I'm not sure that any formula would cover the scope of what needs to be done, and I'm a firm believer in transparency and addressing issues... so in your example, while I understand the point related to people becoming upset about the decision making algorithm... I find it just a bit more disturbing. Especially when it comes to human lives. My problem isn't that it is what it is, my problem is that I don't have any visibility into what it actually is. It's quite similar to profiling. It's done. The public whines about it now and then. But in general, even the people who this works against don't say much. So, yes, I see your point, but I believe that people are strong enough to bear visibility into such things - and if they aren't, they can become so. Understanding how such things happen is an important part of growth, I think. So without the proprietary/FOSS comparison, I look at the underlying issue and see a group of people deciding what they don't want others to know. I think people have a right to know. In general, in Emergency Rooms and in other settings (including a recent death in the family), I've found people are only as weak as we make them. I don't like weak people. I like strong, well informed people
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Ken, Unfortunately, I think you are contradicting yourself. You say that you disagree with the opportunism that Microsoft uses to pry into my computer under the guise of giving me a critical update ...however, there is nothing illegal in what Microsoft is doing. It was all there in an license agreement somewhere that you signed, albeit in tiny print down at the bottom somewhere. Spyware isn't illegal, as long as it's declared...if I sell you a program that emails me personal information about you, but you downloaded and installed it knowingly (especially if you signed a license agreement) then what I am doing is perfectly legal. Free market...if you don't like my product, don't buy it or use it. However, you take the view (as do many others, including myself) that Microsoft is, perhaps, morally wrong in doing this. In using a critical update delivery system to check your software license. In installing software that phones home at intervals, so big brother can keep a close eye on you. How do you know that Microsoft isn't keeping a close eye on what programs you have installed? On how much open source software you're using, to feed into their own development work / priorities? This is their legal right, as long as it was hidden in that agreement somewhere, but it is worthy of condemnation. It violates a user's right to privacy, simply because for many users without the knowledge and experience to use Linux, Microsoft has the monopoly product. It's the only game in town. If you have the freedom to criticize this, even though it is perfectly legal, then you have the freedom to criticize Microsoft's product as well. Whether or not we take the option of switching away from Microsoft products, and exercising our free market rights, we are still capable of criticizing the product. You compared an OS to money, but that's not accurate...no one trades windows CDs to pay for things. And if you buy an operating system and someone steals it, I agree...you should be able to prove ownership before you can demand it back. But you should *not* have to prove ownership every single time the company asks for it, on a daily basis, without even knowing that you are doing so. The makers of the things that were stolen from you did not have the right to come into your home and check to see if you legally owned those products, every day. Perhaps it has now become legal for them to do so, because you have signed an agreement that permits them to do this, but I would not allow anyone into my house on a daily basis in that manner, even if they promised not to touch my other possessions or even take note of anything but their own product. And MS has made no such promise, incidentally. In the end, I think the question is not this is legal, so we can't fault them for it ...it would be legal for you to legally authorize me into your home to check to see if the shirt I sold you is still legally yours. But I think it is reprehensible for an operating system to be sold to end users, when all they are selling is the right to use that operating system on one computer, one set of hardware, with no modifications...in effect, renting. And for a company to use disguised tactics to monitor end users in their use of the software is similarly worthy of criticism. The question is why we are not criticizing and condemning their practices. They can either be forced to change in response to market demands (if you make those demands) or they can continue as they are, because people shrug their shoulders and resign themselves to it. I'm making the switch, actually, and would have done it a while ago if I'd had the time. That's my response. But whether or not users are switching, you *always* have the right to criticize a crappy product or a crappy process that violates your privacy, whether or not it's legally done. Dave. --- Dave A. Chakrabarti Projects Coordinator CTCNet Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] (708) 919 1026 --- Ken Callaghan wrote: While I disagree with the opportunisism that Microsoft utilises to pry into my computer under the guise of giving me a critical update, I really don't have a problem with Microsoft jealously guarding their software. Why shouldn't it be proper to prove you own the software before you re-install it? Comparing it with ownership of a house is not the same thing. A house cannot be copied inexpensively to a CD. Why not compare it to counterfeit currency? We would be annoyed at counterfeit currency being handed to us in payment of a bill or as change from a shop principly because I work hard to be able to have genuine money, yet someone else lives off the rest of us and hands over worthless pieces of paper to pay the same bills that I have to pay with my hard-earned cash. I am not pro-Microsoft, but I am not anti-Microsoft either, other than them employing devious means as outlined by Jesse, and Microsoft should realise that such tactics don't help their public image
RE: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Ken - If we didn't have to prove over and over again that we have the right to use our version of Windows (or whatever) I would have such a beef. Plus, it is difficult to respect Microsoft's intellectual property when MS itself runs roughshod over other entities property and does it's best to stifle competition while treating honest consumers like crooks. It isn't that we have to prove things - that's fine - but we have to do it over and over and over. I should not have to call MS every time I need to reinstall XP (or whatever) on my machine. Also, I think that their dishonesty about how they are beta testing WGA is more than an image issue. It goes to the heart of how they do business. They get away with whatever they can, ethics or fair play be damned, and that isn't kosher if they expect the computing public to respect their intellectual property and play fair. That said, IMO, their model is so bad, the marketplace will take care of them eventually. My guess is that the moment someone comes up with a desktop version of Linux that really has the same flexibility and ease of use as Windows, Windows will be toast. Looking at the minimum specs for Vista, I wonder how well it will do. We'll see. I understand intellectual property laws, but there are limits, especially when we are not talking about commercial reproduction. Squeezing every last penny out of something isn't always good business beyond the PR aspects of the matter. I'm just tired of being treated like a crook when in fact I'm as honest about buying licensed software as you are. There really has to be a better way. Jesse Sinaiko Chicago, IL ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
RE: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Tom Brough writes: I know I cant change your mindset on this (but I have to try). What troubles me is not necessarily proprietary software itself, but the business practices of companies like Microsoft SCO. Hi again Tom, Once again thanks for the thoughtful reply - I do understand, and to a degree empathise with your stance on the business practices of these few companies (plus of course a few others we could mention!). Yet just perhaps you might also agree that not all companies are deserving of such derision, hence my concern when OSS is associated with a condemnation of all proprietary software developments; when the reality of a few is portrayed as a fact of all. Not only is this not factual, it's also just not proper or right. Leading from this, my greatest concern (and reason for initial comment) is that of Open Source Software loosing respect in global society's and markets when a minority of proponents condemn too freely that which they do not like, or perhaps simply do not understand in the context of cooperative software developments. Too often I find those most vocal about OSS actually have very little involvement with the concept. My own involvement with OSS has taken me around the world - from Sri Lanka to New York; from the extremes of having a machine-gun pointed at my mid-rift following and assassination by the Tigers of Tamil, to the horrors of the Tsunami intermingled with the glorious splendour of a Thai Andaman Sea sunset, to the daunting halls, professors and other academics of Harvard University where only last month I promoted our OSS offerings to a global gathering of humanitarian aid and disaster experts - Believe me, for a boy from the Aussie bush who travelled little beyond my country prior to an involvement with OSS this is a truly amazing, if personally very expensive journey... Yet greater than all of this the knowledge that our little OSS software project; the software I am involved with and along with other developers share a distinct passion, is right now helping people in Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines and other disaster stricken communities right around the world. In a very tangible sense we are using OSS to help people survive and return their lives to normality. So Tom when you state that I know I cant change your mindset on this but I have to try... Please be aware that my mindset is very supportive of OSS, but through experience in this world of practicalities I also acknowledge that OSS is only a tiny subset of a much greater humanitarian effort; an effort that to be successful relies just as strongly on understanding and acceptance of the altruism inherent in a lot of proprietary software developments. I guess for me the bottom line here is that whilst I acknowledge your singular ideology, unfortunately I don't have the luxury of being able to share it, and continue to fear the potential for damage in such a singular focus. Who knows, maybe given enough time and effort I might even change your mindset to one of understanding the bigger picture where OSS and proprietary code together offer benefits to humanity :-) Cheers, Don ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
RE: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Taran Rampersad asks: Perhaps you could tell us who insisted that some of your code be proprietary? Hi Taran, Great to hear from you again and I hope you are well - May I focus on your query separately to the main thread because the question is legitimate however I think something of a tangent... Just to offer mild correction, I did not state that anyone insisted that some of my code be proprietary, what I in fact wrote was: The formulae was itself proprietary and used with the permission of the authors. It was a condition placed on me that the formulae not be reverse-engineered - a not-so-subtle difference as I'm sure you will agree :-) The reasons for this, in fact the reasons for any code being made proprietary are just as demonstrative of the freedoms we all enjoy as OSS. We all have the freedom to disclose (OSS), we all have the freedom to with-hold (proprietary). I will never tell you about the pillow-talk between myself and my wife late at night :-) This is my freedom to with-hold; my freedom for proprietary content. A basic human right. OK, the example is a bit over the top... Nonetheless the point is valid. The formulae in question was a survivability model of the type used as an aid to decision-making by most senior emergency managers. It was developed by one of the worlds larger fire and rescue agencies and is one I have used during rescue scenarios several times. The concepts that underpin these formulae are impossible to detail in a single Email message, however by way of very brief summary... The decision to save a life or property; the decision that a life or property cannot be saved, is potentially so emotive as to be unworkable in a crisis emergency context. People make mistakes, place lives at risk, burn-out (or burn-up) trying to determine this simple bit of math... What are the odds that I may loose more lives in trying to save this single life - do I let them live, do I let them die? - Do I save the house or do I let it burn to the ground? - This is a fundamental question most senior rescue and emergency managers will face at some time or another. To help the process of answering this timeless, and timelessly difficult human question, we have a variety of formulae based on recognised models and modes of behaviour that include such aspects as the order of rescue (largest numbers at risk, groups etc.). The formulae itself is just a modelling calculation offering one of two potential answers based on a quick assessment of variables... Yes we take the risk, or, No, we do not take the risk. No big deal - just a bit of math. Enter the general public... Hero worship (rescuers post 911)... It is worth any risk to save a life (even at the loss of multiple lives)... Television images offering condemnation of firefighters standing by while a house burns (the ignorant masses unaware of an accumulation of explosive gasses)... A cop condemned for not drawing his/her weapon to shoot someone in the act of stealing a car (taking his pregnant wife to hospital?). A rescuer taking an extra minute to clothe in PPE so as to prevent a HIV infection. Most emergency agencies do not open these formulae to the general public for the simple reason of reactive media leading to unwarranted and ignorant condemnation. As this was the first time formulae of this type had been incorporated into software I was asked to make sure the formulae could not be reverse engineered. Just as with a great deal of other proprietary code, the reason had absolutely nothing to do with money or any other shareholder interests. Taran whether or not you agree with this reason is immaterial. You may argue that emergency services should make the formulae and underlying models public, or not... But such debate is beyond the scope of this thread. What matters is the way the software licensing model was driven by extraneous factors. It's not all a question of money. Trusting in your understanding - Don ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
RE: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Right now there is a huge stink around the MS anti-piracy software, euphemistically called Windows Genuine Advantage. Turns out that they've been using their critical update feature to download and test new versions of this DRM/validation software. The thing phones home, effectively making it spyware, and although the truth was in the EULA fine print, MS was not at all clear about what the true nature of this critical update was. Pretty dirty. And all in the name of preventing folks from stealing their property; Windows. Furthermore, has anyone here ever had to call India to try to get a new product code for XP because after a reformat and reinstall the old product key doesn't work? Not that I have anything against keeping people in Bangalore employed - must be an extremely boring job, reading long strings of numbers out over the phone all day - but the point is, all this is being done in the name of rip-off or piracy prevention. Really annoying to be treated like a thief for trying to reinstall some software that went pear-shaped because it is full of holes and gets infected easily. Without that profit motive - at least not one as strong and all-encompassing as Microsoft's - none of this silliness would be necessary. We can argue all we want about the advantages of proprietary or open source software, but there's something wrong with the [proprietary] model when one has to prove ownership OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I own a house - do I need to show my title to it every time someone asks me who owns it? I own a car. O need to show a cop my license when he stops me - that's proof of my right to drive - and my registration - proof I've paid tax on the car - but I don't ever remember being asked to prove I own the thing! A royal pain in the ass. Jesse Sinaiko - Chicago, IL ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
RE: [DDN] Missing the point .....
While I disagree with the opportunisism that Microsoft utilises to pry into my computer under the guise of giving me a critical update, I really don't have a problem with Microsoft jealously guarding their software. Why shouldn't it be proper to prove you own the software before you re-install it? Comparing it with ownership of a house is not the same thing. A house cannot be copied inexpensively to a CD. Why not compare it to counterfeit currency? We would be annoyed at counterfeit currency being handed to us in payment of a bill or as change from a shop principly because I work hard to be able to have genuine money, yet someone else lives off the rest of us and hands over worthless pieces of paper to pay the same bills that I have to pay with my hard-earned cash. I am not pro-Microsoft, but I am not anti-Microsoft either, other than them employing devious means as outlined by Jesse, and Microsoft should realise that such tactics don't help their public image problems. What I cannot accept is that Microsoft has no right to check for counterfeit software. They do have a right, and as a person with not a single item of unlicensed software on my system, I hope they put a stop to people getting software illegally fo rthe price of a CD when I and others have to pay for the privilege. And yes there are times we have to prove we own things. When my house was burgled I had to prove that the recovered items were mine before I could have them back. The burglar was not happy when I could do so because then it was proof that he was in my house! One of my clients was shocked to find that every computer on their suite had non-genuine copies of Windows installed. This was traced back to the hardware provider who in turn traced it back to an employee who had taken the money for the licenses but installed Windows on every machine from the one disk. Quite frankly, routing out this sort of thing will help clean up the industry And when on the subject, if we become annoyed at Microsoft checking out whether software is valid or not, we must remember that manufacturers of other items do exactly the same thing. It's illegal to copy books, CDs, patented designs and works of art. So let's not scream and shout too loudly at Microsoft and save our breath for those times we really want them to listen, otherwise our genuine grievances will get lost in the background. Ken Callaghan Digital Communities Belfast Project Manager This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and spam by SurfControl RiskFilter - E-mail. ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Don Cameron wrote: Yes I agree OSS offers enormous benefits to society... No I do not agree that OSS is a mouse in any context other than in the games of OSS marketers. To be objective is to acknowledge that benefits and pitfalls exist in all development methodologies. Cheers, Don I think this is the one bit that I really have to disagree on. I know I cant change your mindset on this (but I have to try). What troubles me is not necessarily proprietary software itself, but the business practices of companies like Microsoft SCO. If people in the free software community did not get up every day and fight the battles that they do (as well as writing good code), then the right to write code (proprietary or free) will be lost forever to a few dominant corporations. The problem is that not enough people understand the issues of patents in software, or the problems of providing a carefully balanced DRM (Digital Rights Management) Law. Left to their own devices certain politically influential corporations would (as I said before) criminalize free software (and free content), or lobby for frameworks (software patents for example) which make it impossible for free software vendors (without considerable financial resources) to defend the software they produced. Traditionally copywrite has done very well at defending the rights of authors of both proprietary and free software, and (IMO) does not need to be changed, while software patents will bring with them the 'rule of biggest cheque book'. I would also consider that if these proprietary vendors viewed free software in the way you do, then they would not spend considerable amounts of resources trying to destroy its credibility ( I do not like the software I choose to use as a free citizen of this planet being called a cancer by the second in command @ Microsoft ). Why would a top ranking Microsoft CEO say something like that if it saw free software as complementary to its own products ? Unfortunately comments like proprietary software and free software complement each other, are not reflective of the daily struggle for survival that free software faces. Im also concerned about what you would consider as the pitfalls of free software. Surely a model that provides software freely to all consumers (or communities) and allows them to contribute back organically can only be a win win win situation :- A win for the consumer / community of the software - since it is 'free'. A win for the software - since it gains functionality and strength and stability through contributions A win for the developer - as (s)he gets direct feedback. Please I am dying to know what the pitfalls may be, since the ones that you have mentioned so far seem to be more like difficulties for the developer ? Of course the developer always has the choice of turning his / her code over to GPL. However if that choice is deemed to be illegal through legislation, or made impractical through software patents, what is left for the free software movement and its expanding user community ? What then will compliment proprietary software ? Where will the incentive for lower software prices that you mentioned before go then ? The cat and mouse game is another FACT of the free software communities daily existence and NOT a free software marketing campaign as you describe it. Please stop trying to mislead people who may not know better, its not helpful to the free software community. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. -- *Thomas Jefferson* So I guess Thomas Jefferson was into marketing campaign's as well ;-) Tom. tom dot brough at blueyonder dot co dot uk ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Hopping in. Don Cameron wrote: The term Open Source Evangelist (Wikipedia ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_evangelist) has common use however my apologies if you find the term misleading; activist if you prefer. I think quite a few people find such labels misleading. I've never heard someone call themselves an 'Open Source Evangelist', that certainly would be an acid test. They certainly do exist. But Evangelists are what they are regardless of what there are evangelizing. It's certainly true that the messenger and the message should be separated, but reflexive labeling is not something I think is conducive to any relationships - and therefore, networks. Hence my introduction to this thread was simply to highlight how the fact as written and promoted to our DDN membership is really not as factual as portrayed... To state that: Proprietary software is written by companies with the primary goal to satisfy shareholders aspirations by increasing market share... Is not true of all circumstances; is not factual in all circumstances. This is a motherhood statement designed to project a negative image of a competing methodology. A marketing ploy. Sometimes true; often false. Yes - and no. Don, you've expressed an opinin - as have others. The truth is that - if you look behind any proprietary umbrella - you can find a business model that leverages proprietary licensing. The reasoning behind having proprietary code to protect an equation does not make anything but business sense. That's not good or bad, it is what it is. If I don't want people using an algorithm, there has to be a reason. If you're going to tell me that the reason - in your example - that some code is proprietary is *not* because of direct or indirect financial reasons (the latter appearing to be appropriate in your example), that's fine. But it doesn't make it so. You've made a judgement in your project. That's fine with me. Proprietary licensing exists only to protect someone's interests. In your example, I see that this applies. Most of the time, these interests are financial. I suppose not making public an algorithm that could be used for humane purposes may not be financial (and I find that to be a stretch), but someone's interests are at heart. If it's not your interests - and I know that they are not - it's probably in the interests of the people who allowed you to use the algorithm. Nobody here that I know of has used a 'marketing ploy' for Open Source/Free Software. There are certainly advocates, and each advocates has their own reasons for advocating things. I don't know that anyone has hyped anything BUT proprietary technologies, and you seem to be finding yourself in an uncomfortable position between proprietary and FOSS. That's OK. Perhaps you could tell us who insisted that some of your code be proprietary? That much of Microsoft Office was itself copied from other non-MS proprietary applications like Star Writer, Perfect Writer and Perfect Calc (and others) is further testimony of the way proprietary software contributes to software development and evolution. No. It just means that you can get stuff before they change laws so that it's illegal for others who follow to do. Yes I agree OSS offers enormous benefits to society... No I do not agree that OSS is a mouse in any context other than in the games of OSS marketers. To be objective is to acknowledge that benefits and pitfalls exist in all development methodologies. I'm sorry Don, I don't believe you're making sense. Call me an evangelist, call me an advocate, call me Bob. Call me what you will. When proprietary licensing is used, it's to protect *something* for *someone*. Maybe you've used proprietary code in such a manner, but whoever required that some code be proprietary licensed did so for a reason. Unfortunately, since you've been exposed to that code which means any innovation you do related to code which does similar things would be suspect. I don't envy your position. You made a choice. Maybe for you it is the right choice. Maybe for your project it was the right choice. But in the wording of your response. There are some merits in what you say. Some FOSS advocates are certainly characters. But I don't think you have the right to say this: Hence my introduction to this thread was simply to highlight how the fact as written and promoted to our DDN membership is really not as factual as portrayed... I don't see what you have to gain by making sweeping statements against people within the DDN membership who have expressed generalizations which are about as accurate as your specific example - perhaps more. Really, Don, if you think that people run around and proprietarily license things for no reason, and you are right, then I have need of lithium. Perhaps you could explain this in better detail than you have so far. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago
RE: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Tom thanks for your considered reply to some of these points. In recognition that discussion on software methodologies can degrade to flames, in continuing may I acknowledge your views and beliefs. The topic can be discussed without flames when we keep this intelligence within the discussion. The term Open Source Evangelist (Wikipedia ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_evangelist) has common use however my apologies if you find the term misleading; activist if you prefer. I sense we are both activists. Evangelism becomes a descriptor only when activism limits itself to a single methodology within an ideology. As a technology activist I am free to be more expansive than this - There are many software development methodologies offering benefit - some labelled as OSS, some as Proprietary Freeware, others as Commercial Code (OSS or Proprietary). Whatever works for a given scenario and circumstance. What we must avoid are false claims by or concerning any or all of the above. Considered analysis means placing ourselves above the cat and mouse marketing game - to look through the hype and seek truth. Hence my introduction to this thread was simply to highlight how the fact as written and promoted to our DDN membership is really not as factual as portrayed... To state that: Proprietary software is written by companies with the primary goal to satisfy shareholders aspirations by increasing market share... Is not true of all circumstances; is not factual in all circumstances. This is a motherhood statement designed to project a negative image of a competing methodology. A marketing ploy. Sometimes true; often false. In closing a brief note on software development and innovation - My earlier comments on Open Office were not directed at innovative feature development, limited yet important nonetheless - rather it was directed at the far more complicated process of core application development. That Open Office looks identical to Microsoft Office is no coincidence. Menu look and hierarchy's, ontology's, most of the core features of Open Office are direct copies of Microsoft Office. The reason OO is far more popular than other OSS attempts at office application integration is because OO looks and feels exactly like MS Office; it is a carbon copy. OO developers (including Sun) avoided the pain and process of developing these aspects internally - they simply copied them directly from MS Office because software proprietary only protects code - it does not protect function, look, usability, purpose, business rule application and integration (domain analysis)... All the aspects that comprise 90% of any software development cycle. That much of Microsoft Office was itself copied from other non-MS proprietary applications like Star Writer, Perfect Writer and Perfect Calc (and others) is further testimony of the way proprietary software contributes to software development and evolution. Yes I agree OSS offers enormous benefits to society... No I do not agree that OSS is a mouse in any context other than in the games of OSS marketers. To be objective is to acknowledge that benefits and pitfalls exist in all development methodologies. Cheers, Don ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Jesse Sinaiko wrote: Making the OS an application-heavy bit of one size-fits-all software actually limits choice and stifles innovation, in spite of Steve Ballmer's assertion that the only innovative operation on the planet is MS. In this sense, the last real OS put out by MS was Windows 2000 in 1999, and that had a lot of superfluous gunk in it too. As long as MS can play with the language and call their Windows software an operating system we will be stuck in this debate. Maybe if we can think up a term to correctly characterize Windows as something other than an OS we will have taken a step forward. We can then look at real operating systems and deal with Windows in the niche it actually belongs in, which is not the OS space IMHO. Jesse Sinaiko Chicago, IL You know, I never quite looked at it this way... thanks for this gift. :-) -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago [EMAIL PROTECTED] Always looking for contracts! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ Criticize by creating. — Michelangelo ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Don Cameron wrote: Tom Brough writes: Fact 1: Proprietary software is written by companies with the primary goal to satisfy shareholders aspirations by increasing market share. Another way of saying they have a profit motive. As a software developer I must comment on this stated fact of proprietary software being written by companies with the primary goal to satisfy shareholders etc. etc. True in some circumstances, but Tom have you not heard of Freeware? Sole Proprietor Developments? Co-op Source? Much proprietary software is written by individuals and/or groups for altruistic reasons and is often provided free of charge. During the 90's I wrote and distributed a freeware application called EMS for use by Emergency Operations Centre's in times of disaster. The code was proprietary for a number of reasons (none of them profit-related -1); the software was provided free of charge. Nowadays I develop with the Open Source Sahana team and provide elements and processes from my earlier proprietary code into this Open Source initiative. Its debatable as to whether Free software Co-op Source are not proprietary or not. Sole Proprietor Developments only benefit the company for which they are written and therefore by definition are profit motive driven, since what company in its right mind would (knowingly) develop or commission software that made them a loss ? As far as I am aware free software does not actively discourage the use of these models (or any proprietary models). However proprietary or not they do not comply with the definition of free software or even the open source foundation definition (in the case of freeware there is no obligation to supply source). Sadly some evangelists of either development methodology loose site of the importance of proprietary software to open source and visa-vis. These are complimentary methodologies; not competing! - Open Office would not exist were it not for the business development processes assessed and development by Microsoft and made available through a cursory analysis of MS Office - as always, the code (the OSS part) is less than 10% of a software development project - The bulk of the work in terms of time and expense (the 90% being development of ontology's, business rules and processes, human interface issues, developing interaction processes etc.etc.etc.) has already been done by a proprietary code developer (MS Office) and as a result is now freely available for use by OSS developers (Open Office). I submit that Open Office would probably not exist had developers been required to complete a full software development cycle - the reason they were not required to do this (and were able to provide an application requiring only 10% of the effort normally required) is because 90% of the work has been done and paid for by proprietary developers. This is exactly the same with our Sahana developments, and the same with much Linux development (although just try to find a self-professed 'nix-only developer honest enough to admit it!). Firstly I am an advocate not an evangelist. I think the strict definition of an evangelist has religious implications, as far as I am aware GNU / Linux or the GPL license is not recognized as one of the major (or for that matter minor) religions. So Microsoft do not see free software as a competitor but rather as a friend ? This would be in the way that a cat might befriend a mouse say just before lunch time ? As for proprietary software providing 90% of the innovation :- Which os had 64bit processor kernel support first ? Which os had USB 2.0 framework support first ? Which word processor had right to left language support first OO writer or MS Word? Which browser had tabbed browser sessions first Firefox or IE ? The list is endless but we only have one lifetime . And on the final sentence of you long paragraph, surely if there was anything that related to the IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) of another company, you would be stamped on immediately (and quite rightly). Are you trying to imply that all free software if theft ? - I hope not. Open Source software is a great development model offering much to our community's - I would not be contributing to OSS developments were it otherwise Good Stop there you have got it got It ! :-) - Yet to factionalise this industry; to denigrate the value, contributions, and the frequent altruistic backing of proprietary code is to shoot ourselves in the foot - one methodology needs to the other. It's the business model underpinning much proprietary code that pays for the type of developments (business ontology's and rules-mapping etc.) that OSS could never complete Oh no you have not :-( If you are talking specifically about how Sun bought Star Office and then released the Open Office code to the free software community. My I point out that firstly, after all the proprietary copywrite and patented code had been scrubbed
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Tom Brough wrote: Certification is a double edged sword. On the one hand it gives employers an indication that you have the skills they need, and on the other its courses are usually provided by vendors of the software, which encourages lock-in culture (either by accident or design). However there are (office suite neutral) alternatives. There are people who think that certification should show skill and aptitude, and flexible thinking rather than ability to follow prescribed paths and actions blindly and unwaveringly. In a url http://www.theingots.org/ You can do this in MS Office or OpenOffice the choice is yours . The world IS changing .. Wow. Thanks for this Tom, it was completely off of my radar! :-) -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago [EMAIL PROTECTED] Always looking for contracts! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ Criticize by creating. — Michelangelo ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Taran Rampersad wrote: That employers look *specifically* for people with Microsoft Office experience is a real issue and cannot be ignored either - but if you can use OpenOffice.org, as Dave points out, you can use Microsoft Office - and vice versa. One of these packages can be used on all major operating systems. One cannot. So Human Resource departments (oh, how I detest that name) are working off of what can certify someone on a piece of software. There's no certification for OpenOffice.org where some Human Resource Interviewer can say, Are you certified in OpenOffice?. A certification for OpenOffice.org has been batted around like a seal between two killer whales, but nobody has bitten yet. At the back of it all, I am left to wonder why there's a certification at all... one of my cousins was doing a Microsoft certification for MS Office, and... strangely... I showed him how to do a lot of it. I'm not certified in Microsoft Office. He is, now. So all things being equal, we can do similar tasks within Microsoft Office, but at an interview he has a piece of paper and I don't. I always find that amusing. Certification is a double edged sword. On the one hand it gives employers an indication that you have the skills they need, and on the other its courses are usually provided by vendors of the software, which encourages lock-in culture (either by accident or design). However there are (office suite neutral) alternatives. There are people who think that certification should show skill and aptitude, and flexible thinking rather than ability to follow prescribed paths and actions blindly and unwaveringly. In a url http://www.theingots.org/ You can do this in MS Office or OpenOffice the choice is yours . The world IS changing .. Tom. tombrough at blueyonder dot co dot uk ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
RE: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Linus Torvalds is actually on record for saying something similar to this... that the user *shouldn't* have to care what OS they are using, they should be focusing on the applications they use. This point - made by Torvalds and brought here by Taran brings up a point about what an OS actually is, and what proprietary vendors - MS in particular (doh!) - have made the OS, at least the Windows OS. Windows has become the Swiss army knife of the operating system arena. Because it is a proprietary, profit-driven outfit, MS understands the limitations of an OS in the true sense of the term and turns it into the only software you will ever have to install on your computer. With the advent of web-based applications, word processing and spreadsheets in particular, everything else anyone could ever possibly want EVER is integrated into Windows. All that will be in Windows Vista, plus lots and lots of stuff everyone really, really needs but doesn't know it yet. Making the OS an application-heavy bit of one size-fits-all software actually limits choice and stifles innovation, in spite of Steve Ballmer's assertion that the only innovative operation on the planet is MS. In this sense, the last real OS put out by MS was Windows 2000 in 1999, and that had a lot of superfluous gunk in it too. As long as MS can play with the language and call their Windows software an operating system we will be stuck in this debate. Maybe if we can think up a term to correctly characterize Windows as something other than an OS we will have taken a step forward. We can then look at real operating systems and deal with Windows in the niche it actually belongs in, which is not the OS space IMHO. Jesse Sinaiko Chicago, IL ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Tom, A very well articulated post...thanks. While there is an ideological basis for preferring open source software over proprietary software, the problem I encounter in these discussions is that people will generally concede every point you've made, and then say but, I need something that's industry standard so my trainees can get jobs. I heard exactly this point of view at a community meeting on the west side of Chicago recently. A well-educated, technically trained (she has an A+ certification and has been working as an independent tech consultant for some time now) said that open source is great and the world may change someday, but what we need is training in the tools that will get our community jobs *now* ...businesses want someone who knows Word and Excel, not Linux, etc. This is incorrect, but it is a generally held point of view that seems to sidestep your entire argument by saying that the proprietary world owns / controls everything, and to function in this society we must become participants on proprietary culture. I believe the challenge is not just in making people familiar with the culture and philosophy of open source, but the practicality and functionality of it. Most of these people who use the jobs require MS Word argument aren't aware that most websites run on open source platforms with proven reliability and security track records. I'd go one step further and say that while an employer may even *state* that an applicant must know Microsoft Word and Excel, what he *means* is that the applicant must know word processing and spreadsheets. It is the skill you are being hired for, not the names you drop. (And if we're playing the name dropping game, incidentally, dropping Linux tends to certify you as a techie much faster than I can use XP Pro.) In addition, I have yet to meet someone who was trained in Linux and Open Office who could not use a Windows machine in a work environment. If a business chooses to use proprietary software, that is their choice, but it *does not* dictate the tool that a job applicant uses in their training. Whether an applicant learns to use Excel or an open source alternative, what they have learned is how to use a spreadsheet. Figuring out how things are done on the package that your employer happens to use, if this is different from the one you happened to use, is trivial. And it really is. If you know your way around Open Office, does it truly take you days to figure out MS Word, or vice versa? Separate the tool from the skill. No writer was hired because of the brand of pen he knew how to use, or the color of paper he was trained to write on. The guy who fixes my car (when I'm rich, and have a car) will be someone I choose based on his ability to work on cars, not the brand of wrench he chooses to buy. So, unpleasant though it may be, this discussion (whether on this list or in person with a nonprofit or a friend) will have to address the effectiveness of the tool for the job at hand (hence the debate on security, stability, speed, etc, etc). The ideological differences between the two become a deciding factor only once people have accepted that open source is a viable alternative, and are willing to give it some consideration. Getting to that point is the difficult part. The ideology of open source may be more suited to a community organization than a proprietary solution, but until I can demonstrate that the open source solution offers more functionality, better security, more flexibility, or in some other sense makes a better business case, no one will adopt it. Dave. --- Dave A. Chakrabarti Projects Coordinator CTCNet Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] (708) 919 1026 --- Tom Brough wrote: Much that I hate to open old wounds, but I am compelled by my convictions to write on the subject of proprietary vs free software. I think the arguments put forward before have missed some key points. Firstly Im not interested in my os is better / faster / more stable / less buggy / more powerful ... than your os arguments. For one thing these arguments are a pointless waste of time that polarize and paralyze good people who should have better things to do (see Fact 3). What I am interested in is what ICT technology servers a community best. We have come to a fork in the road, some will want to take one route and other will want to take another, but consider this carefully before you choose. Fact 1: Proprietary software is written by companies with the primary goal to satisfy shareholders aspirations by increasing market share. Another way of saying they have a profit motive. Fact 2: Free software and particularly GNU licensed software is written by programmers who (for the most part) wish to provide a better product (freely) to the community. Fact 3: (And you may all want to shoot me down here): The DDN membership is interested primarily in providing ICT access to various and diverse
Re: [DDN] Missing the point .....
Great post, Tom. Some additions. Tom Brough wrote: Much that I hate to open old wounds, but I am compelled by my convictions to write on the subject of proprietary vs free software. I think the arguments put forward before have missed some key points. Firstly Im not interested in my os is better / faster / more stable / less buggy / more powerful ... than your os arguments. For one thing these arguments are a pointless waste of time that polarize and paralyze good people who should have better things to do (see Fact 3). Linus Torvalds is actually on record for saying something similar to this... that the user *shouldn't* have to care what OS they are using, they should be focusing on the applications they use. This mixes well with Dave's point which basically states, 'a spreadsheet is a spreadsheet is a spreadsheet'. That employers look *specifically* for people with Microsoft Office experience is a real issue and cannot be ignored either - but if you can use OpenOffice.org, as Dave points out, you can use Microsoft Office - and vice versa. One of these packages can be used on all major operating systems. One cannot. So Human Resource departments (oh, how I detest that name) are working off of what can certify someone on a piece of software. There's no certification for OpenOffice.org where some Human Resource Interviewer can say, Are you certified in OpenOffice?. A certification for OpenOffice.org has been batted around like a seal between two killer whales, but nobody has bitten yet. At the back of it all, I am left to wonder why there's a certification at all... one of my cousins was doing a Microsoft certification for MS Office, and... strangely... I showed him how to do a lot of it. I'm not certified in Microsoft Office. He is, now. So all things being equal, we can do similar tasks within Microsoft Office, but at an interview he has a piece of paper and I don't. I always find that amusing. Then there's another aspect we have to look at: interoperability. If the machines were not connected to each other on a network, this wouldn't matter. And if all machines ran the same operating system, this wouldn't matter. However, neither of these are true, so interoperability is an issue. And interoperability depends on stability and compatible software as well as other things. So that becomes an interesting thing to consider and one could spend years doing so with no real conclusions. My problem with most of these arguments is that they don't have much of a real basis. More or less bugs doesn't matter, it's the 'quality' of the bugs and how fast they are addressed... It's not about faster, it's about which is more stable. And stability depends on the software being used. So I tend to stay out of those 'discussions' because in the end, they make no sense. They do, however, keep a lot of people busy and a few writers employed. 'Hmm. I have to write something that will gain interest. Let's drag out the old Linux vs. Windows' argument.' It just muddies the water. The proof is always in the pudding, not in statistics. :-) What I am interested in is what ICT technology servers a community best. We have come to a fork in the road, some will want to take one route and other will want to take another, but consider this carefully before you choose. Fact 1: Proprietary software is written by companies with the primary goal to satisfy shareholders aspirations by increasing market share. Another way of saying they have a profit motive. Fact 2: Free software and particularly GNU licensed software is written by programmers who (for the most part) wish to provide a better product (freely) to the community. I have to tack on here Fact 2a: Commercial entities also pay for Free Software/Open Source to be developed akin to Fact 1. Fact 3: (And you may all want to shoot me down here): The DDN membership is interested primarily in providing ICT access to various and diverse communities throughout the world. Now I (personally) see friction between 1 3 and harmony between 2 3. This is because, and it is my opinion only, proprietary software is like the fish, you can only eat it once, while Free software in the form of GNU licensed software is more like the fishing rod tool kit, because different communities need different or adaptable technologies in order to go fishing. Well, Fact 2a is also an issue with Free Software/Open Source now. Commercial software is commercial software, regardless of the license, and the motives are the same. Profit. Nothing wrong with that. Now you can call me a crazy old fool, BUT all the arguments about bug counts, stability, sustainability etc ... isnt going to make the slightest bit of difference to fact 1 2 or 3. Bingo! What do I win? Proprietary software vendors will always commit their primary focus to market share and shareholders. Free Software developers will remain committed to improving their products
