Hi Ray,
Most of the people doing the software development are students or folks
working in public service contexts or people working on their own time (or
on their employers' time when they might otherwise be playing solitaire
;->
Increasingly though for a variety of reasons, some software and other
.com's are hiring "hackers" and letting them loose... as a sort of "giving
back to the net", p.r., getting the folks inside the tent etc.etc.
(e.g. IBM, O'Reilly, Red Hat etc.)
also...
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Ray E. Harrell wrote:
>Just a question. Who pays the salaries for all of these
>folks doing free things and giving up their ideas for nothing?
>
>We give $123,000 in scholarship awards to worthy
>students and art projects but someone always pays
>the bill. People do have to eat.
>
The terminology is probably less important here than the process which is
a rather unique one and is well described in a variety of places...
I posted something on this to the list a few weeks ago which can be found
at <http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca/articles/Cathedral.htm>l (a revised version
will be in the September issue of "First Monday"
<http://www.firstmonday.dk>.
If folks are interested in reading more about this, there is more
information in the various URL's cited at the end of this paper or in
the long article in the current Atlantic Monthly
<http://www.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/o/issues/99aug/9908linux.htm>
>Also the first post that ascribed this to communism
>seems strange since that involves committees. It
>seems more accurately to be a Democratic process,
>not unlike the cultures of many pre-Columbian societies
>here. But there was a social safety net built into the
>religion and family structure to protect those who
>"gave away". By the way the word for a process that
>ascribes more value to giving away that to accrual is
>called a "potlatch." Maybe they should call the answer
>to Inktomi, (the Lakota word for the spider trickster)
>potlatch.
M
>
>REH
>
>Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>> more...
>>
>> M
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 17:22:43 +1000 (EST)
>> From: Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: john courtneidge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: econ-lets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of
>> computing
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, john courtneidge wrote:
>>
>> > To: "Quakers (Britain Yearly Meeting) online meeting place"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Cc: econ-lets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> (Response trimmed to econ-lets only. If you wish to post it back to the
>> other lists to which I'm not subscribed, please feel free)
>>
>> > Friends, all - for your entertainment/astonishment/whatever
>>
>> Hi John. This is indeed an interesting post, with which I rather agree
>> on a level of sentiment, but I feel I must respond to a couple of issues
>> of fact, perception, and projection, raised by its author:
>>
>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (heiko)
>>
>> [..]
>> > and is suddenly valued at $6.4 Billion. All Red Hat have done is package
>> > Linux, the free and open source software programmes made by volunteers
>> > across the world and charged for it. What does this signify?
>>
>> In part it signifies that many people would rather pay someone to box up
>> a set of CDROMS, than spend maybe a hundred hours on the net downloading
>> the latest 'free' distribution :) and in another part it signifies that
>> the current insane prices for stocks with 'e-' or 'i-' in front of their
>> names is merely a huge bubble, just waiting to be pricked.
>>
>> > For those who don't know, Linux is an operating system that works by
>> > providing all the "source codes" for all programmes that run on it, so
>> > there are no secrets, errors can be corrected immediately and development
>> > has no limits. Unlike private copyrighted source codes of commercial
>> > companies. In a word Linux can be made to run any computer operation you
>> > can imagine, and an infinite variety you cannot yet thing of, AND IT IS
>> > FREE.
>>
>> As are FreeBSD, OpenBSD or NetBSD, other open-source UNIX-like operating
>> systems that are based on a (once) free public release of the University
>> of California at Berkeley's source code. Linux is getting all the press
>> admittedly, in fact it's the only one that most media people know about.
>>
>> > The Financial Times carried a major article today August 13 1999, p 14
>> > asking whether co-operative made software can defeat Microsoft, and
>> > concludes yes..!
>> >
>> > According to the United Nations Human Development Report 1999 Linux
>> > "Apache" programme on servers now runs over 50% of all web servers
>> > world-wide, and the FT reports 70% of e-mail is sent on Linux "Send Mail".
>>
>> This is just misleading. Apache was not developed by, for or on Linux;
>> it's an open collaboration alright, but was developed for UNIX systems
>> in general, and has been 'ported' to many Unices, plus OS/2 and others.
>>
>> And Sendmail has been moving most of the world's email for at least
>> twice as long as Linux has existed, or was even thought of; it too runs
>> on all UNIX-like systems. The statement above suggests that Linux is
>> the operating system used by these >50% of web servers running Apache,
>> and the 70% of mail servers running sendmail, which is patently untrue.
>>
>> This is not to denigrate Linux in any way, it's one of a number of fine
>> open-source operating systems, but serves to illustrate the massive hype
>> surrounding Linux that has been generated by ignorant mainstream media,
>> and if you've represented the UN report accurately, ignorant UN people :)
>>
>> > In other words the Internet is being run by co-operative endeavour, nay by
>> > the communist ideals that Marx spoke of "from each according to his
>> > ability, to each according to his needs".
>>
>> To invoke Marx here is to draw a very long bow indeed. Familiarity with
>> open source communities suggests a more sanguine approach to guessing at
>> peoples' motivations for being involved with open source development.
>>
>> There's an element of community, for sure, but there's plenty of ego and
>> oneupmanship involved too. And software developers, as a 'class' are
>> far from a left-wing sort of mob. Most are, it must be remembered, rich
>> people by any world standards, merely by possessing the necessary tools.
>>
>> There are of course notable exceptions, some highly altruistic people
>> sharing their gifts for the good of humanity or the ecosphere, who are
>> developing free software to those ends - but they're a small minority.
>>
>> > Thank God!..because the implications of continuing and extending the
>> > domination of private ownership of software managing the Internet are too
>> > horrific to contemplate.
>>
>> Another misconception. While Microsoft may currently dominate mass
>> markets for home and office desktop computers, through sheer marketing,
>> it's been far from successful in penetrating server markets, which were
>> all UNIX before Microsoft was even started in the late seventies, and
>> largely remains so today. Some percentage of large servers will be
>> Linux systems, but more are Sun/Solaris, various BSD, and other UNIX.
>>
>> Even Microsoft use UNIX, not NT, servers for big services like Hotmail
>> (a FreeBSD sytem) and at one stage, even its own Microsoft Network!
>>
>> > But what does this mean for co-operatives?
>> >
>> > First it means the rebirth of co-operatives on a high tech basis can defeat
>> > multinationals, second that the Unions, Co-operatives and Labour movement
>> > must promote co-operative software development, e-commerce and computing
>> > operations, with HARD CASH. A little investment by the Government in these
>> > areas, even if only £10-100 million in the UK for example, could destroy
>> > Microsoft's position in the server market and create open source core
>> > programmes to serve the whole world.
>>
>> Now here's where I think you're plain misguided. The reason open source
>> software is at last coming into its own (ie, publicly) is very largely
>> _because_ there's been no bureaucratic involvement by any such bodies,
>> or until recently, by companies like RedHat. Involvement of government
>> in the open source movement would at best be ineffective, and at worst
>> hugely damaging, particulary if it diverted resources now freely given.
>>
>> There's no NEED to get into this competitive model promoted by the likes
>> of Microsoft. In fact, such is anaethma to most of the people involved,
>> who as you say are working cooperatively, and not by the behest of some
>> committee/s. Descending to Microsoft's sick view of the world in order
>> to 'defeat' it is just more of the same, in my view, and wasted effort.
>>
>> > No doubt Blair and co and already planning to announce something like this
>> > investment in co-operatives any day
>> [.. ? ..]
>> > controlling the world economy by their stifling stranglehold on the
>> > development of software do they?
>>
>> If government - or indeed committee thinking even among cooperatives -
>> attempt to 'do anything' about open source software, beyond getting on
>> with using it to solve real problems in real human communities, then it
>> will be a huge (and unneccessary) waste of valuable resources. The
>> thinking of governments and of large corporations is not so different,
>> whereas the sort of thinking that has given rise to the open source
>> movement - which is over 30 years old, please remember, and in fact was
>> the original, only method of software distribution before these greedy
>> companies got in on the act with their 'software patents' and the like -
>> is totally averse, and hopefully immune, to committee-designed software.
>>
>> > Co-operative or communist operations are winning the high tech efficiency
>> > war, this we must shout from the rooftops and scream outside number 10, who
>> > knows someone may listen.
>>
>> Well I sincerely hope people like Blair will remain blissfully (and
>> characteristically) ignorant, and so do no damage by trying to interfere
>> with a very useful process that is already picking up good momentum :)
>>
>> In short, operating systems and network development is in good (read
>> anarchically widely distributed) hands, and worrying that Microsoft will
>> rule the world is like worrying that everyone will buy (only) Ford cars.
>>
>> Now, USING this stuff for applications useful to the advancement of the
>> cooperative movement, decentralised currencies, and critical cessation
>> of the destruction of the ecosphere is another matter .. go for it!
>>
>> Cheers, Ian
>
>
>
Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
** NOTE ** New E-Mail as of Sept. 1, 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ECBC/NSERC/SSHRC Associate Chair in the Management of Technological Change
Director: Centre for Community and Enterprise Networking (C\CEN)
University College of Cape Breton, POBox 5300, Sydney, NS, CANADA B1P 6L2
Tel. 902-563-1369 (o) 902-562-1055 (h) 902-562-0119 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca ICQ: 7388855
