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 > 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. > > 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. > > Proprietary software vendors will always commit their primary focus to > market share and shareholders. > Free Software developers will remain committed to improving their > products for the good of the community. > DDN will always consist of members trying to assist bridging the digital > divide, in the way they know best. > > For me software that is a community owned asset is the only way to > assist a community struggling to get up on the first step of the ICT > ladder. Communities NEED software that they can adapt to their own > needs, cultural outlooks and values. There may be bugs, there may be > stability problems, but they will have the power to decide what needs > fixing and what needs adapting and they will have the right and the > resources to take appropriate action and ultimately contribute back to > the community as a whole. > > For me proprietary software has none of the attributes that encourage > sustainable, independent, organic growth of ICT applications. On the > contary proprietary software builds in a dependancy culture that > prohibits local innovation, limits local economy growth and leads to > intellectual stagnation. > > And that is why I will remain an advocate for free software development. > > Tom Brough > > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
