FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)

[Michael Gurstein]

-- 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]>

Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)

[Michael Gurstein]

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,

Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)

[Ray E. Harrell]

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.  An

Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)

[Michael Gurstein]

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 l (a revised version
will be in the September issue of "First Monday"
.

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 


>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 'p

Re: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)

[Tor Forde]

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)

[Christoph Reuss]

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