The FLOSS Movement is not yet recognized enough to develop peacefully. There are many obstacles in the way of its expansion: either internal (e.g. lack of standards) or external (e.g. stubborn hardware manufacturers). Those problems could be gradually overcome in a relatively short period of time but a question arises: What will happen if the paranoia wins?
The Nuclear Option in FLOSS
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I’ll stick with FLOSS until something better comes along.
“The only reason people are still creating (or using) closed source software is because people who still create (or use) closed source software are (choose one: ancient, unable to adapt, monopolists, propagandists, haters of liberty, haters of freedom, insane, stupid, pirating open-source, tools of Satan).”
Must every post like this be considered ‘news’? That’s like posting every assertion by every OS developer who decided his little homebrew OS is the best giant-killer (with the “giant” always being Microsoft Windows, not a product issue like security, stability, or support) the industry has ever seen.
You could probably use a Mad Libs-style generator to make a dozen of these announcements a day… and they’d probably each be given thousands of hits per day by sites like slashdot, digg, and this site.
Just say NO to fundamentalism.
And to fanatics:)
Everyone who doesn’t say no to fundamentalism/fanatics are (choose one: ancient, unable to adapt, monopolists, propagandists, haters of liberty, haters of freedom, insane, stupid, pirating open-source, tools of Satan)!!1
Hi, I’m the author of the article and I too say NO to fundamentalism. =}
No, I don’t see the MS as “Satan” of any kind. I just see they differ enough from all the other big IT firms and more often than anyone else in the industry behave in a bad manner. That could be called “arrogance” and “abusing the power”, but that’s far from the “satanism”…
I honestly wanted to find anybody sharing their attitude to correct the old stereotype, but (as I wrote) found no one like them. It’s definitely telling something, but doesn’t imply they are as demonic as they like to be seen.
In the culture you guys are from Satan is a symbol of destructive forces. Daniel, you portray Mickeysoft as socially destructive, so tell me how it is not satanic?
I’m relativist and don’t think there’s purpose in life, but Mickeysoft is against the trends, it’s anti-social and it will perish.
I agreed with you all the way up until you said “this site.”
I’ve been a visitor for the better part of 4 years and I think that not only are the editors here top notch and for the most part unbiased but this site publishes quite a lot of crap…err op eds (no, I’m not slighting OSNews here) from all sides of the argument(s). There’s also tons of great articles that get published and lots of information that other sites completely skip or are days late in publishing.
OSNews publishes links to loads of articles, those with merit and those without, yet more often the former.
I think comparing OSNews to Digg or Slashdot is a bit of an affront. The editors here are far more sane than those at Slashdot and this site doesn’t have the incredibly rude users of Digg.
Well I could make up quotes that don’t actually appear to make an author look bad too. Here lets try:
While I hate reading the article or commenting on the actual content of it, I do like to rant about bad stories being posted, and criticize the site that directed me there, even though no one forces me to go read the article. Furthurmore, I know that people will mod this post up, because they didn’t RTFA either and they’ll think that what I quoted was actually said in the article.
I must say, that’s very honest of you to admit that.
I’m not entirely sure what action would deserve the term ‘nuclear’. Are we looking at something on the level of Microsoft suing Red Hat and everyone who infringes on its patents it claims Linux is infringing?
Or something like the U.S. Government mandating all computers must have verified Microsoft DRM and content control, to appease the MPAA?
Or something like DRM preventing computers from having their operating system changed without Official Authorization?
That’s one seriously bad article. Where to start, where to start? Lets just pick some choice part lest we’ll be here all day:
“The Internet itself and computers are moving into every single area of our lives; this leads to the atmosphere in which freedom is back in favor.”
Really? It does? I’m all in favor of freedom but I really don’t see how one leads to the other.
“The attack we can anticipate will be something huge: the computer equivalent of a nuclear explosion.”
Uh…….WHAT?
“The only thing that separates Internet users and their friends from the access to any CD, movie, book or application is obeying the law and morality – nothing more!”
Imagine that, law and morality preventing people from committing criminal and/or amoral acts. You know, just like every other part of society.
Like how law and morality is the only thing that prevents me from going out and clobber some random old lady and steal her money.
I could go on but reading it makes my brain hurt very, very much. The entire article is, to put it bluntly, totally stupid and mostly incoherent. Maybe it lost something in he translation but I doubt it.
Seriously, does osnews really have to link to every shitty blog post out there?
What’s next? Weekly World News?
Edited 2007-03-20 03:39
Imagine that, law and morality preventing people from committing criminal and/or amoral acts. You know, just like every other part of society.
Like how law and morality is the only thing that prevents me from going out and clobber some random old lady and steal her money.
99% of people don’t give a flying rubber ducky about copying software (illegaly or legaly they usually don’t care). They see it as it should be seen, as lending (or scanning yes) books and sharing information.
I just don’t care about programmer’s pay check enough (and I’m one myself) to limit this freedom with DRMs or other crap. Same goes for music. I don’t care if the artist dies of hunger because I copied the cd.
You see the difference is, that clobbering an old lady is:
a) assault (most people don’t feel ok about this)
b) taking a genuine object from person X to person Y
The difference is, that if I copy the latest photoshop, I might be making potential (because I don’t have that kind of money to begin with) loss of who knows what stupid sum of money to adobe, but I don’t really STEAL anything. Stealing as understood by most people is taking something belonging to someone else in such a way that they don’t have it afterwards. (legal definition differs of course)
“I don’t care if the artist dies of hunger because I copied the cd.”
You sure have a lot of love for your fellow (wo)man.
“You see the difference is, that clobbering an old lady is:
a) assault (most people don’t feel ok about this)
b) taking a genuine object from person X to person Y ”
Most people dont feel ok with not paying someone for their work either.
Copying a CD is
a) copyright infringement
b) preventing person X from getting his due
“The difference is, that if I copy the latest photoshop, I might be making potential (because I don’t have that kind of money to begin with)”
If I steal someone’s money I might also be making potential since maybe I didnt have any money to begin with.
“loss of who knows what stupid sum of money to adobe, but I don’t really STEAL anything.”
So what if you didnt *steal* anything? You’re still braking the law. So if I defraud you it’s ok because it’s not stealing? Is stealing the only crime we need to concern ourselves with?
You really didn’t get it did you?
My point was that while morale and ethics is enough to prevent most people to murder someone or steal (in the old kind of sense) it will NEVER be enough to prevent someone to copy CDs, music, software or even do pirating themselves.
Never…
But that also doesn’t mean that I agree with restraints like DRM (because you tend to jump to conclusions easily)
Nobody likes DRM. (Aside from some content producers, that is.) But for people like yourself who have zero respect for copyright law, it’s a technical measure to discourage you.
You compared copyright law against assault, theft and murder. Then by this reasoning would you be against a technological implant that fries the brain of someone as soon as they maliciously raise the club to clobber the old lady?
Looks like I have to state this:
Copyright is a very unintuitive law. Why? because you do not see anybody getting harmed by copyright infringement directly.
If you rob an old lady you will see the horrible effect on her, and that prevents 99.9999% of the population from committing robbery. The law is just here to extend that behaviour also tho the few with a dysfunctional conscience.
For copyright to become more widely understood, making it more intuitive (more like trademark law) would be good:
Make it expire the day the creator of the work dies, or if the copyright holder is a company make the copyright expire 50 years after registering it. Also make the copyright transferable from the original author to somebody else only if it is registered.
If you do not put your copyrighted work to use (print it, distribute it, sell it, let it distribute it by others), it goes public domain. That should take care of lots of orphaned work.
Gustl, have you read the “Free culture” by Lawrence Lessig? (http://www.free-culture.cc)
His proposition is to establish a central office where all the copyright protected materials are registered for a symbolic fee. When the time of protection passes, the owner may prolong it, but if she omits it, the copyright protection is abandoned.
In this way:
a) owners get their protection,
b) everybody else get the content once it starts being freely available (because the owner thinks it’s not worth protecting any more or is simply forgotten),
c) you don’t have to mess with licenses if you just “produce” something and need no protection for your work,
and the bonus:
d) everybody knows exactly who is the owner and which things are restricted!
While Lessig meant probably just USA, this concept can be extended to be more international.
“Copying a CD is
a) copyright infringement
b) preventing person X from getting his due”
c) legal in some countries, as long as no profit is made from that copy.
Applying DRM restrictions worldwide not only wont stop “piracy”, but could even be deemed illegal.
I agree with both of you.
I am a bassist in a rock band and we release our music online, give away demos and will continue to do the same when our first album is recorded this summer. The fact is that yes, we can make money on selling our CD but are far more likely to get people to listen to our stuff if they can get it for free and they will get it for free no matter what we do. More people listening to our music means potentially more people coming to our gigs which translates into revenue.
In my experiences with property and how we look at it, I generally get the impression that unless your physically taking something away from somebody, people seem to consider it at the most ‘piracy’, not a real crime. The same seems to go with shoplifting, especially when it’s done to a big chain store. Ripping off an individual OTOH is considered far more serious. Even our legal code is based on these ‘ideas’, ‘feelings’, ‘concepts’ what have you.
You guys need to take reading comprehension or something. It was a pretty easy to read article, but then, it wasnt pro MS so that may have something to do with it.
“The only reason people are still creating (or using) closed source software is because people who still create (or use) closed source software are (choose one: ancient, unable to adapt, monopolists, propagandists, haters of liberty, haters of freedom, insane, stupid, pirating open-source, tools of Satan).”
Where did this quote come from? The article didnt say that at all. It did say that most companies are at least acknowleging that open source is a valid business, with the exception of MS. Which the author is pretty much right about.
“The Internet itself and computers are moving into every single area of our lives; this leads to the atmosphere in which freedom is back in favor.”
If you would have quoted a little further into the article you would have seen this: “Millions of people have had an opportunity to make free use of information and it has changed people’s attitudes.” Basically the cat is out of the bag.
Lets face it. We are seeing a paradigm shift in the industry. You MS lovers can squawk all you want, but in the end you will just bury your head in the sand and pretend it isnt happening. Because the entire world is moving away from closed buggy software to something better. Whether or not that be linux in the long run, we will have to wait and see. But it is happening.
“You MS lovers can squawk all you want, but in the end you will just bury your head in the sand and pretend it isnt happening.”
I think it’s cute that anyone who dare critize any crazy article that is pro-FLOSS is autamatically labeled an “MS lover”. There’s a word for this tendency to ignore criticism and paint any opposing voice as the enemy and for some reason I am thinking of Jonestown right now.
Edited 2007-03-20 05:23
I think it’s cute that you just proven to be an MS lover, because as they say “the goose which got hit always sqeaks (or how’s the english word for goosy sound)”
“I think it’s cute that you just proven to be an MS lover”
Hahahaha. Yeah, I’m the biggest MS fanboi here, second only to NotParker.
Next time you want to insult someone, do your homework so at least you can accuse them of the right thing.
I don’t see the paradigm shift in the industry. I don’t see the world moving away from closed software. What I see is that majority of consumers uses MS Windows (not me), Adobe Acrobat, Internet explorer, MS Office, and so on. I have no idea on what planet do you live.
Yes, some people (me too), use other software, but it is a tiny minority.
For most of the people out there computers are peripheral matter, a tool for the job. They are, in fact, confused when facing freedom of choice. That’s why they choose Microsoft. Microsoft is “taking their hand” and guiding them, and they like it.
DG
I trust Ballmer to be able to ruin Microsoft just fine all by himself. Relax, lean back, and watch him do it.
If Ballmer decides to pull the nuclear option on their partners and customers, then they’ll simply go out in a bang, rather than a whimper.
Microsoft’s biggest enemy is near enough themselves. Microsoft’s dificiencies allow linux growth, and Vista woes only push people to alternatives like Apple. If Windows was as good as the output of Microsoft’s other depeartments (Visual Studio, Server2K3, Office and Office:Mac, XBox360), then the monopoly might be almost justifiable.
Yes, MS is a company driven by the marketers and the lawyers, but you can’t deny they hire some extremely talented engineers. They are also a company that may resort to FUD quite often, but rarely litigation. The Linux question is undoubtedly out of the bag already — even governments are standardizing on it in important roles. So there’s little to fear from Microsoft.
What they will have to do (and you can see this happening more and more since 2003 onward) is that they will have to rely more on their engineers than their marketers and lawyers to create a quality product.
Once this company fires Ballmer (long overdue) and perhaps a few other executives of the same ilk, I can bet we’ll see a rebirth of Microsoft on the level that we’ve seen from Sun Microsystems. What MS needs to do is focus focus focus on what makes them a valuable company, rather than continue trying to create their own branded simicrulum of the entire computing industry. That industry is too large now for a corporate model to scale with, unless MS goes with a model more decentralized like IBM — but MS’s strength has always been in their ability to create tight integration (setting the bar for OSS today), and unfortunately they’re between a rock and a hard place if they think they can recreate the whole industry under a single MS umbrella, and yet also be a tightly integrated company that builds solutions likewise.
I wouldn’t be surprised if their own investors eventually seek for the company to be broken up. That would be the best thing for MS’s future growth, I believe.
As far as MS being an evil, immoral company … they may be unethical, but show me a company of that size which isn’t. So that issue goes beyond MS and more into the soul of capitalism itself. Aside from a philosophical discussion of economics, though, I think MS is only “EVIL” if you consider yourself a citizen of cyberspace before a resident of the real planet earth. Sure, if you consider the world you really live to be the digital realm of bits and bytes, then yeah, I could see MS as being evil, in the Stallmanian sense of their obsession with monopolizing and obfusgating the free flow of information, which is the lifeblood of a free digital world. But few people identify with that worldview.
Edited 2007-03-20 17:55