Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)
Hi Brad, Just a couple of points. 1. Like Christians, I basically judged systems not by their theories but the people of practice them as well as how much they were left alone in the world at vital times for their development. i.e. you can't stomp the corn when it is a bud and blame for tasting bad. 2. The people at IBM years ago referred to thier system as corporate socialism. I suspect that is what this current system is since someone IS paying the bill somewhere. REH Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: 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? [snip] someone always pays the bill. People do have to eat. Very good question. Sounds to me like a good research project for some sociologists! 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. [snip] Two points here: (1) Ray's definition of "communism" seems to be oriented to what came out of the Bolschevik revolution and *called* itself "Communist" while *being* more fascist, etc. If we're willing to give up the word "communism" to the Right-wingers, then how about: "anarcho-syndicalism"? (2) Whatever one wishes to call a *material* democratic process in which the workers are also the policy makers, I wonder how such a process applies to a bunch of *computer programmers*, who, in my experience, have a vision of human social interaction limited by *science fiction*, which, for the most part, seems to be very existentially "thin" and to have an ideal of a rebirth of feudalism in flying fortresses (Star Wars, etc.). My guess is that many of the "free software" programmers have little notion of any social process, and that their vision of a "free software community" is merely an epiphenomenon of whatever *real* social system provides them with computers and pizza (yes, even programmers have to eat...). The present Global Capitalism probably suits many of them just fine (Joseph Weizenbaum argued that the computer has been one of the most powerful forces for social reaction in the 20th Century). I would like to see technical workers develop a richer sense of what it means to be human (including what it means to do computer programming), and to thematize the political nature of what they do (whatever it is). For, as Sartre said: To not choose is to choose [for what will happen if persons don't do anything to change it]. And, to quote from imperfect memory, Joseph Weizenbaum: I hope that, as the discipline of computer science matures, its practitioners will mature also, and that, whatever thsy do, they will think about it, so that those who come after them will not wish they had not done it. \brad mccormick -- Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[XML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)
Ray E. Harrell wrote: Hi Brad, Just a couple of points. 1. Like Christians, I basically judged systems not by their theories but the people of practice them as well as how much they were left alone in the world at vital times for their development. i.e. you can't stomp the corn when it is a bud and blame for tasting bad. I'd annotate that statement with references to Lloyd de Mause's _The History of Childhood: The Untold Story of Child Abuse_ (Peter Bedrick Books, 1988), Alice Miller's books: _For Your Own Good_, _Thou Shalt Not Be Aware_, and _The Drama of the Gifted Child_, Frederick Leboyer's _Birth Without Violence_, etc. Not to mention more literal forms of "stomping buds", i.e., ritual genital mutilation of girls and boys 2. The people at IBM years ago referred to thier system as corporate socialism. I suspect that is what this current system is since someone IS paying the bill somewhere. Do you have a reference for the IBM dictum? -- I'd much appreciate having it. I'll bet nobody at IBM *TODAY* is saying that! We've "progressed" in the past 20 or 30 years, far beyond such things, into the brave new world of ever shorter product development cycle times, longer work weeks, decreased employment security, greater income disparities, etc. Why, to borrow a turn of phrase from Nietzsche's Zarathustra's Prolog: We've invented "twenty-four seven". REH Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: 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? [snip] someone always pays the bill. People do have to eat. [snip] I'd also like to note that the lead article in yesterday's New York Times magazine was something I've been saying for a long time: "The West" didn't do what needed to be done to help the Russian people after we liberated them from Capital-C-Communism. --But then I've been reprimanded more than once for thinking that surgeons should have any concern about their patients beyond when the patient is discharged from the hospital (the context here is wondering what is the point of bringing people from poor countries here and operating on them if they're just going to go back to poverty). \brad mccormick -- Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[XML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)
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
Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)
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. 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. 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
Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)
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? [snip] someone always pays the bill. People do have to eat. Very good question. Sounds to me like a good research project for some sociologists! 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. [snip] Two points here: (1) Ray's definition of "communism" seems to be oriented to what came out of the Bolschevik revolution and *called* itself "Communist" while *being* more fascist, etc. If we're willing to give up the word "communism" to the Right-wingers, then how about: "anarcho-syndicalism"? (2) Whatever one wishes to call a *material* democratic process in which the workers are also the policy makers, I wonder how such a process applies to a bunch of *computer programmers*, who, in my experience, have a vision of human social interaction limited by *science fiction*, which, for the most part, seems to be very existentially "thin" and to have an ideal of a rebirth of feudalism in flying fortresses (Star Wars, etc.). My guess is that many of the "free software" programmers have little notion of any social process, and that their vision of a "free software community" is merely an epiphenomenon of whatever *real* social system provides them with computers and pizza (yes, even programmers have to eat...). The present Global Capitalism probably suits many of them just fine (Joseph Weizenbaum argued that the computer has been one of the most powerful forces for social reaction in the 20th Century). I would like to see technical workers develop a richer sense of what it means to be human (including what it means to do computer programming), and to thematize the political nature of what they do (whatever it is). For, as Sartre said: To not choose is to choose [for what will happen if persons don't do anything to change it]. And, to quote from imperfect memory, Joseph Weizenbaum: I hope that, as the discipline of computer science matures, its practitioners will mature also, and that, whatever thsy do, they will think about it, so that those who come after them will not wish they had not done it. \brad mccormick -- Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[XML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)
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.html (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
Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)
Hi Ray! 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? Lots of the programmes which make up Linux are made by students and other persons working at universities. The kernel of Linux was made by Thorvald Linus at the university of Helsinki. When it became a success the university paid Linus for several years to go on devolping the kernel, and that university is financed by the governement of Finland. Linus got a scientific position, and was allowed to do whatever he wanted to do, and that was to study and develop the kernel of Linux. -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing(fwd)
REH asked: Just a question. Who pays the salaries for all of these [Linux] folks doing free things and giving up their ideas for nothing? The KGB. After all, Linux is a communist plot to destroy the greatest free enterprise of all times (Micro$oft). No, wait, that was the Cato Institute's point of view. ;o) (Actually, Micro$oft is a communist plot to harm the Western economies -- see http://www.elsop.com/wrc/humor/ms_kgb.htm ) Seriously, to answer your question: The salaries of Linux co-developers (or rather, co-refiners) are paid by their employers/customers/whatever -- they're students and professional users/develpers who are doing this as kinda "professional hobby". However, this has nothing to do with "giving up their ideas for nothing"! -- quite on the contrary: They can *implement* their ideas, and they get a good operating system (which is less buggy and doesn't depend on the whims of the great dictator B.G.) in return, and politically they contribute to the prevention of a totalitarian software/OS dictatorship -- see http://www.boycott-ms.org/summary.html for a summary on the concept. Aren't these great motivations ? In this context it should also be mentioned that Micro$oft is (ab)using millions of developers and users worldwide as (involuntary) beta-testers of M$ software, and not even for free -- these users have to pay for the software and even for the help (if any), and they can't even fix the bugs themselves (because they don't have the source code) ! That's the typical neo-liberal "privatize the profits, socialize the costs" scheme at its "best"... Chris
FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:01:25 +0100 From: john courtneidge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Quakers (Britain Yearly Meeting) online meeting place" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: econ-lets [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing Friends, all - for your entertainment/astonishment/whatever Remember the South Sea Bubble, Tulipomania etc and etc ??? -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (heiko) To: subscribers:; Subject: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing Date: Fri, Aug 13, 1999, 6:09 pm Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing The Market is mad .NASDAQ decides communism is more efficient than capitalism Within three days "Red Hat" a Linux software packaging and marketing company which loses money and makes nothing of significance itself, floated on the US stock market and increased it's share price more than four times 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? 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. 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". 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". Thank God!..because the implications of continuing and extending the domination of private ownership of software managing the Internet are too horrific to contemplate. 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. No doubt Blair and co and already planning to announce something like this investment in co-operatives any day because they don't want monopolies controlling the world economy by their stifling stranglehold on the development of software do they? 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. Heiko Khoo http://www.internetfuture.com # This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send any message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To switch to the digest mode, send any message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send administrative queries to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
