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 for the good of the community.
Free Software/Open Source software vendors also commit to their market
share and shareholders. All things being equal, the market share and
shareholders for the commercial entities are one and the same - at least
for now.
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
My main reasons for supporting Free Software/Open Source (FOSS),
especially in the context of the digital divide, are:
(1) Teach people how to fish instead of giving them fish, so that they
are independent.
(2) Open Standards typically are found within Free Software/Open Source,
which promotes interoperability and decrease costs by allowing input
from everyone. Proprietary standards are exclusive, and are meant to
standardize based on what one company or group of companies feels is right.
(3) Businesses/NGOs can modify FOSS or have it modified for them even in
very small markets, whereas these small markets may be unimportant to
proprietary vendors.
(4) A culture of openness and transparency allows rapid growth for large
groups of people. A closed culture allows only a small group of people
to grow at the cost of the growth of larger groups of people.
There are a few more, I'm sure.
--
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.
