[Edu-sig] linux essay

[Kirby Urner]

> In most cases I know, proprietary software does not really have more
> features but it has a large advertising machine behind them which
> makes them looked as if they were much more advanced than their free
> counterparts.

I work with an outfit that suggests open source alternatives to NGOs.  In
most cases we do find alternatives, but in many of these cases, the
alternatives have fewer features and are harder for end users.  

For example, ad hoc, GUI-based, banded report designers with nested data
grouping (for printing data from SQL) are still hard to find in the open
source world.  Jasper Reports is open source Java, and quite capable, but
needs its input in XML. The GUI front ends are still in beginning stages.
The closed source world currently has more existing solutions.

On a more personal note: I've had a hard time finding any VRML plug-in or
freestanding program that will compete with Cortona on either Windows or
Linux (Cortona is free, but not open source).

Video editing and animation:  open source is coming along (e.g. Cinelerra),
but most would agree that the closed source options are far easier to use
(ease of use is a feature).

> > and the people who buy it make plenty of money with it -- enough to
> > easily justify the cost of ownership.
> I'm not talking about costs here. I'm sure that all the money I spend
> everyday to advocate for free software is more than I would spend if I
> bought proprietary software and used it quietly. But my freedom is
> more valuable than all that money I spend.

Yes, I'm not taking issue with what you personally do or do not do with your
money.

> I agree. That's exactly why I advocate free software and not just
> Linux. At a recent public debate I had with representatives of Oracle
> and Microsoft, the guy from Oracle said that he was absolutely
> shocked to find out that his views were closer to Microsoft's and
> opposed to those of the free software association I lead.
> He mistakingly thought that since Oracle DBMS runs on Linux, we were on
> the same train and opposed to Microsoft.

We recommend PostgreSQL for many nonprofits.  Again, I haven't found any
GUI-based SQL designers as easy to use as the one in Microsoft Access.  But
if you know SQL, you don't need a GUI designer.  This is typical:  the open
source option requires greater sophistication (and this isn't always a bad
thing of course -- just being able to read source code in various languages
takes a lot of training, and yet this is what the power of open source
really depends on).

> For me it is not a matter of technical competition. I would not like
> my country to undergo a competition between slavery and democracy to
> find out which one leads to a stronger economy. I think slavery is
> ethically wrong and the issue of whether it leads to a stronger economy
> or not is irrelevant.
 
I don't think closed source software is necessarily evil, and don't make the
analogy with slavery.  I am dependent on a great many services and products
in an industrialized society which I do not have the ability to create or
modify.  This is just life in the big city.

I certainly understand why governments wouldn't want to base their systems
on proprietary, closed source software.  I don't understand how electronic
voting machine software in a democracy could be closed source (as it is in
the USA).  The whole voting process should be completely transparent (except
we need to protect the identities of voters).  Here, the danger of
enslavement is more real (but not in every context).

Certainly agree that there should be no barriers to people collaborating to
provide free and open source solutions.  More power to us!

> I think that allowing a patent for the RSA algorithm is wrong. I
> prefer the European policy that equations and algorithms cannot be
> patented (I keep my fingers crossed that this policy is not changed at
> the prime minister's meeting on next Monday).

I tend to agree with you on this.

> Exactly. And I do not see anything wrong with the desire to keep
> secrecy as long as they do not claim ownership of any ideas.

I think the patent system is out of control and it's way too easy for
corporations to file for exclusive rights on things (not just ideas, but
natural phenomena, processes, everything).  The trend towards privatization
has gone too far.

I think the legal system had a very serious bug introduced when corporations
were given the full rights of persons.  This was not the case in pre civil
war USA.

> I do not try to force people to give back to the community. If some
> company wants to profit from my GPLed program and use it for their own
> good without sharing any improvements, I do not feel bad; I'm glad
> they could profit from my contribution. What I expect is that
> commercial interests do not forbid me from giving back to the
> community or sharing if I want to.

Yes, I support your right, and that of the open source community, to grow
and evolve.

Kirby