LinuxSA Mailing list archives

  From: Alan Kennington <ak1.linuxsa@topology.org>
  To  : LinuxSA <linuxsa@linuxsa.org.au>
  Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:05:46 +0930

Re: AFR: No mandate on open source, says Qld

On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:44:40PM +0930, David Lloyd wrote:
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:06:05 +1000
> From: Con Zymaris <conz@cyber.com.au>
> To: talk@auug.org.au, linux-aus@linux.org.au
> Cc: osv <osv-list@lists.osv.org.au>
> Subject: [osv-list] AFR: No mandate on open source, says Qld
> 
> 
> 
> Read it and weep ;-)
> 
> http://afr.com/premium/articles/2003/07/21/1058639726733.html
> 
>  The Queensland  government is reserving judgement on open-source software
> 
>  and maintaining its use of Microsoft technology instead.


David,

Admittedly the fact that govt doesn't use open source is a bad thing,
but it's bad in the sense that if you have compassion for others, then
you don't want them to suffer. There comes a point, however, in trying to
help others - such as govts - that one has to ask whether they deserve
compassion if they're trying so hard not to be helped. Remember that 
whenever you help someone, you become responsible for all of their
problems for eternity. (Just ask a liability insurance broker about
insurance for "advice". That makes my broker shiver with dread.
"You don't give your clients _advice_, do you?!") You should never give
anyone advice unless you're certain that they can't afford to sue you.
And governments have more suing resources than most entities.

Serious question:  Is there really any benefit to _linux_ users in getting
govts to use linux? 
More generally, how is open source helped by govt adoption of it?

Consider the example of the Internet. I still remember very clearly how
most people on the net in 1985 were computer/computing scientists - people used
to often just leave accounts open without passwords as a courtesy to 
others so that they could fix problems themselves. It was a different level
of trust then. An "open (mail) relay" was a good thing then too. Now it's 
regarded as an evil comparable to child molesting. 
(I seem to remember that RMS got his account taken away at MIT because he
refused to use a password though.)
Now look what's happened to the Internet with all the riff-raff on it!!

If everyone uses linux, then we'll have the governments of the world
trying to control it just like they're getting all authoritarian about the
Internet now. Governments will be saying you can't have this or that
on your distro disks. They'll insist on DRM and such stuff.
They'll insist that linux distros be kid-safe -- i.e. infantile.

I say let's keep linux for the intellectual elites - the upper crusts,
and the lower crusts too, and all the other crusts in between.
But let's not let the non-intellectual riff-raff take over linux.
The rot has already begun to set in. Look at the hopeless KDE help
facility - it's as bad as the MS help facilities:
"Save -- Click 'Save' to save your file;
Quit -- Click 'Quit' to quit this program".

The distros are getting more and more customized for non-experts and
more and more frustrating for linux experts.

If governments take up linux and something goes wrong, we'll all be
tarnished with the same brush - or maybe with several different brushes,
but we'll still be tarnished - or tarred or whatever.
I say we should try to stop linux being more widely adopted than at present.
Don't let linux be brought under government legislation and control.
As long as govts think that linux is some nerd thing, they'll leave us alone,
like they used to leave the Internet alone. That's why SBS TV can show
what they like - only 5% of people watch it; so the govt doesn't care.

I think we should aim for a target of 5% linux adoption.
Let's keep a small target so that it isn't worthwhile for governments
to interfere with us.
Is open source in danger of collapse if adoption does not progress beyond
its present level? Maybe not.

------------------------------
By the way, I agree that open standards _are_ good. We need to make sure
that documents and all other file formats and protocols are standard
and _required_ to be standard. That's a much easier thing to "sell"
politically because open standards is somehow related to "free trade"
which makes capitalists rub their hands with glee.
And more to the point.... open standards should be _free_ open standards,
unencumbered by patents and such monopolistic nonsense.
(Right now, my work is being hindered by some silly patents on CRCs and LSB
encoding. I want to release something open source but I can't. Grrrrr....)

Cheers,
Alan Kennington.

PS. If anything in this e-mail seems annoying, please pretend that I
didn't say it. In 24 hours, you'll forget it. If pain persists, see
a nice movie. I recommend "Forbidden Planet" for fast pain relief.

-- 
LinuxSA WWW: http://www.linuxsa.org.au/ IRC: #linuxsa on irc.freenode.net
To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
  mail linuxsa-request@linuxsa.org.au with "unsubscribe" as the subject