When Think Tanks Attack 595
x1048576 writes "The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is only one of a dozen different think tanks that have attacked Open Source. Why are all these think tanks so down on Open Source? Well, the Small Business Survival Committee is concerned that using open source will expose small business to the risk of lawsuits. Citizens Against Government Waste is concerned that the government might waste money on Open Source. Defenders of Property Rights is concerned that Open Source might be a threat to intellectual property rights. However, I was able to detect a common theme to all their criticism. They all seem to be funded by Microsoft."
Funding.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Funding.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That might be and it wouldn't even be a problem, unless...
It's like a newspaper masquarading a "sponsored feature" as an actual article and not as an advertisment.
That's about the lowest low you can reach in journalism. I wouldn't see why this should be different with "think tanks".
Re:Funding.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funding.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Funding.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Funding.... (Score:3, Informative)
Incidentally, if you look at other large sponsors of these agencies, you'll see other funding sources they have in common besides Microsoft. It's not like MS is the sole, driving force behind these o
Re:Funding.... (Score:5, Informative)
You'll be hard pressed to find a "stink tank" that would agree with you. They do claim unbiased analysis. If they weren't trying to at least project the image of being unbiased agents of the truth, they wouldn't be much use would they? By witholding disclaimers in their articles as to who funds them, they're liars and they know it. I'm sure they'd even deny the watered down term of propagandist. Even Slashdot will conscientiously admit to the source of an article being from or involving a parent company to acknowledge the possibility of a conflict of interest. That shows Slashdot is a more honest than these loser "analists".
However, if they aren't for the truth, what are they for? I mean, has anyone stopped to ask what is a "think tank" anyways? Here's a couple [reference.com] definitions [disinfopedia.org].
Incidentally, if you look at other large sponsors of these agencies, you'll see other funding sources they have in common besides Microsoft. It's not like MS is the sole, driving force behind these organizations.
Perhaps not, but it's absolutely clear they are the common funder. And, I bet they're the biggest fish in that scummy pond. It's also crystal clear that the less visibility Microsoft has as a funder, the less likely there will be questions of veracity regarding the "analysis" from these so called "think tanks". As Microsoft practices security through obscurity, so do these "stink tanks" claim unbiased authority by not announcing who paid for their "research". There's a reason why political Ads must have full disclosure as to who paid for what. That's because an uninformed public will make uninformed decisions, and often against their own interests. Paint it anyway you want, but I've got paint thinner.
= 9J =
Re:Funding.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Funding.... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is disagreement here about something that is really too big and complicated for any person to reasonably claim to know definite answers. (please don't hurt me,
Re:Funding.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Newsflash... (Score:5, Funny)
Wasting money on Open Source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again, think who these people are funded by.
Re:Wasting money on Open Source? (Score:3, Insightful)
The one that says that an average Malaysian worker has to work 1,100 (yes, eleven hundred) hours to buy a licensed copy of Windows XP.
The same worker would also have to work roughly 11,000 hours to buy a standard PC not to mention various peripheral devices.
Re:Wasting money on Open Source? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or probably with a free PC?
In our "modern" world old hardware becomes worthless so rapidly that donating it to 3rd world countries for free is often cheaper than trying to recycle it.
Someone should put together a "low hardware"-knoppix that can run with little hardware but provides all the office-/net-related goodies.
I guess that's
This is good news (Score:5, Informative)
Linux most important problem is that people don't know about it and that people don't know that it can solve their problem at all.
Microsoft is now solving both problems for us.
Yes, I know that PHBs are in general pretty dumb, but instead of not even considering OpenSource, hundreds of TCO-studies about Linux and Windows will make sure they will:
I personally thank Microsoft for that free advertizing and see it as an act of desperation.
kickbacks (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, it will change. I know it will. Bound to happen. Several years ago now I noticed the young geeks all using linux. Not someone's nephew who can play video games so he's the family computer "specialist", nope, I mean the geeks. The young people in any industry determine the trends of the industry, sooner or later, because thats where the innovation comes from, and also that's where the next generation of decision making bosses comes from.
Microsoft is hosed now, ain't nuthin they can do other than try and get legislation passed to save them. I'm serious on that. they are right at the exact point they need protection, even though they are still raking in billions, it's coming, they know it, that's why you are seeing this sort of stuff. Part of that is to have "concerned consumers" lobby for them. What a crock. IF they do that they will struggle along making billions for a lot more years, but if they *fail to get legislation passed that protects them and their business model of no warranty and mediocre product but maximum profits*, they are hosed. It might take some time, but they will crash and burn right along the opposite side of the curve of their rise to success. That is my prediction.
Re:kickbacks (Score:5, Insightful)
First, let me clarify that I hate MS with a passion. I have worked for them as a contractor and I have developed software which, while not in direct competition, nonetheless required negotiating licensing with them. I've been in IT for 15 years and dealt with their crap since DOS v2.x
I've also used various flavors of Unix and Linux over the years both professionally and personally and run Macs as my workstations at home now. (Linux on the servers of course
However, my employer at this time, and many businesses which I have consulted for over the years, run Windows.
Why?
Because most businesses under 200 employees have an over-worked one-man IT dept. and one or more wierd vertical applications.
99% of the time the cost of switching is simply not worth it!
This is why you only see two classes of business switching these days:
A - very small cottage-industry types who have no IT staff at all. If the engineer doing their work for them is Linux savvy and wants to do them a favor he'll switch them (I say "favor" because it means less income for him!).
B - Large enterprises with at least a half-dozen IT people where the long-term savings of switching begins to add up to enough to cover the hassle.
Which brings me to a different point of interest; consistency and support!
Linux apps are inconsistent as hell! If I'm going to expect a dept. to make the switch I have to at least be able to give them a consistent environment and that requires spending many hours on a "model" machine changing about a zillion attributes scattered all over the place. Not to mention the hours spent troubleshooting inconsistencies between libraries and whatnot!
It's getting better, don't get me wrong. That's why I keep using it at home and play with most of the major distro's on a regular basis. But as near as I can tell it's going to be a few more years before we really see wide-spread adoption simply because it takes too much time to configure a solid environment. Time which has to be amortised over the number of machines on the network. Time which admittedly is spent swatting Microsoft bugs right now. But y'know what? It's virtually impossible to get funds in the budget to hire an extra body just so you can try out something which might save the company a few bucks in the long term.
There's only 24 hours in the day. If all of your time is spent doing your existing job it's hard to investigate new things.
Like the old saw about alligators and draining the swamp. Once the swamp is drained the alligators will go away but in the meantime it's hard to concentrate on that while they're chewing on you!
So once Linux is a "super-swamp-drainer" we'll start seeing alligators dropping like flies.
(I'm hoping and praying Novell will do that for us on the technical side since they damn sure can't in marketing!
Re:kickbacks (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel though, that one of my major points-kickbacks, along with other unethical behavior, was how this whole empire came about. I can not prove it, so I will say I am just guessing. I dare anyone to dispute that cash "consultation fees" are not a major part of most large international business now, no matter the product. It HAS been proven they did other medium despicable things to get and stay inside computers all over, most notably vendor lock in, IMO. I'll grant they produced products, some decent, some mediocre, some pretty dismal. The differences between small medium and large shops are somewhat becoming moot with automated tools that are available now. Scaling is a reality, although yes, there is always a series of customised whatevers that require hands on, no matter the scale. I have to dork with a single box all the time, so I appreciate how hard it must be to keep *many* of them going. I was more speaking of the medium and long term, short term-the next few years-I expect them to continue with their dominance (inside the US, outside, no I think they'll lose steam faster), and to especially push legislative actions as much as software, which is the major topic of the thread, semi phony "citizen action groups". That's an opening of panic desperation move, clear as day. Whether or not they are entirely successful I don't know, but they have billions of dollars and thousands of people to throw at it, if they choose to. I am cynical to the max about it. I can't see them just giving up, or allowing their carved in stone pay us forever and a day business model to go away, because they simply cannot conceive of any other model to work for them, it's outside the huge money all the time reality they have gotten used to now. I see them as almost identical to the movie and music industries in this aspect. An established monopoly is hard to give up, so anything goes on keeping it-anything. No rules. And at their size, very few laws except laws in their favor apply to them. On paper they do, in the real world, they don't.
Whether linux or mac or bsd or whatever "takes over" I think is moot, what is more important is whether or not our society will be best served by one company doing it all. I think not. Computers are tools to do the real stuff, not the real stuff all by themselves, although WITHIN the industry that is the real stuff, OUTSIDE the industry they are just tools. and that "outside" part is way bigger than the inside part, taking planetary scale of hukan endeavor into consideration. Microsoft seems to want every company,government or person to be working for them, instead of the other way around. it's weird but that's what it looks like to me. like your regular job is just there for microsoft, you must keep paying them tribute or something to keep in business. WHY people got sucked into that mindset is beyond me.
I also think that the folks actually doing the real work with computers will gradually, gradually, gradually wear down the marketing guys and PHBs on this subject, choosing function over form whenever they can get their way on it, and that the mass users segment of the market will just use whatever happens to be on their desks or on sale at the computer store, same as they do now.
And yes, I will agree somewhat with the assessment that in specific "linux" needs to have a lot more consistency to be used past a few percent niche. HOW to do that, no idea. Unified packaging might be a good start. HOW to do that, no idea. Not my gig really. Less skins, more function wouldn't hurt either.
Re:kickbacks (Score:4, Interesting)
Possibly in a broad sense. However, Linux is becoming the premier platform to BUILD AND DEPLOY APPLICATIONS. It is built for that. When you can deploy applications quickly and cheaply, and can build customized applications quickly and cheaply, you can move ahead of your competitors who are running on yesterday's overpriced applications quickly and cheaply, and afford to make your IT department a revenue generator rather than just a cost sink.
Re:kickbacks (Score:3, Insightful)
Then your company is not running as efficiently as it could, or you're really small. There is not much difference between the way a company's data moves and a company operates. If you only use standard, off-the-shelf software for operations, it is likely that your operations are not optimal. Custom software is the lifeblood of most successful businesses.
that's just part of it (Score:3, Insightful)
I also think they probably used a lot of under the table cash in the right hands, but I can't pro
Re:Wasting money on Open Source? (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance, I did a lot of promotion of LinuxTLE in Thailand. A complete computer with it installed will cost about 11,000 Baht (~US$270), but the equivalent computer with XP and MS OFfice is 27K+.
For the entry level college grad, this is over three months' salary!. For the average programmer, it is about two and a half months' salary. People find it easy to justify the piracy when numbers like these come in, and it leads to the `95% piracy rate.
Compare this with Korea, where I live now. Almost every computer that I see is licensed properly, and running XP or ME. MSOffice is not popular, but a competitor, HanWord, is. Korea has the twelveth largest economy in the world (I've heard), and people make a salary approximately on par with the US. It is, however, a stone's throw from China, where the piracy is legendary.
Just my observations.
Re:Wasting money on Open Source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice sound bite. How many hours does the average Malaysian work to buy a computer, or to pay the rent and utilities on a place to put the computer, or to pay for the Internet connection required to get the software? How many hours for a cell phone? For a Linux-powered PDA? For OS X?
I'm sure XP is out of the range of affordability for much of the world's population. Is that a bad thing? Some things are more expensive. MS has costs associated with selling and supporting software that open source doesn't have. Pricing to meet those costs is a sound business practice, and as a Microsoft shareholder I'm glad they're not giving the stuff away.
Re:Wasting money on Open Source? (Score:3, Interesting)
How many hours does the average Malaysian work to buy a computer, or to pay the rent and utilities on a place to put the computer, or to pay for the Internet connection required to get the software?How many hours for a cell phone?
Rent is probably comparable to everywhere else - work 50 hours or so to pay for the roof over your head. I doubt many Malaysians own computers - they probably use internet cafes a lot. I bet cell phones are fairly cheap, though.
Re:Wasting money on Open Source? (Score:3, Interesting)
Working at a fastfood joint (there is forever a vacancy) in Malaysia will pay rm 3.50 an hour + benefits and workers fund ( 10 % of your pay is dedducted for workers fund, and the company adds another 20% to it).
A licenced copy of windows purchased with a PC is about rm 350. So if you are a teen working at say KFC and you spend all of your take home pay on the licenc
Being attacked by a think tank! (Score:5, Funny)
("What a depressingly stupid tank.")
Re:Being attacked by a think tank! (Score:3, Insightful)
Citizens Against Government Waste (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Citizens Against Government Waste (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Citizens Against Government Waste (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Citizens Against Government Waste (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Citizens Against Government Waste (Score:3, Insightful)
Reagan's biggest mistake in my mind was caving in to their demands. Never negotiate with terrorists, even if they're congressmen and senators...
Concerns: government wasting money on open source (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Concerns: government wasting money on open sour (Score:4, Interesting)
Monopolies and ultra-wealthy are returning to favor; the legions of stockholders are stamping their feet for those things, due to the stock bribes they've taken in the last 12 years. I don't expect much from elitist think tanks therefore. The only bright ray in this is that Linux isn't free, it's free-as-in-no-license-cost, and that's very compelling in this new age of artificial scarcity.
Re:Concerns: government wasting money on open sour (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem that no one addresses is that even with high rates for rich taxpayers, the super-rich are often also liberal (and conservative as well) elites and the tax code has been set up by both parties to have huge loopholes for the super rich, regardless of the rates.
Re:Concerns: government wasting money on open sour (Score:5, Insightful)
Starting to understand now how those loopholes come into effect? Even worse, think about what happens when a loophole that's being widely exploited is shut down. It works out to the same thing as a tax increase, and you know how Americans feel about those. Which is why so many genuinely accidental loopholes become permanent parts of the tax code. And the loopholes work both ways, like the now-gone "marriage penalty" (where a married couple pay more in taxes than they would filing separately). Those loopholes tend to last forever too, because tax reform - even tax reform that reduces the overall tax burden on a popular demographic - never plays as well as tax cuts. And if there's one thing politicians love, it's spending my money.
Re:Concerns: government wasting money on open sour (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it is almost completely untrue. I am British, and most Americans would regard me as so kind of communist or socialist as I support some limited redistributive policies.
But I think you believe far more in rhetoric than facts if you believe that the rich and corporates are sucking up all
Re:Concerns: government wasting money on open sour (Score:5, Interesting)
The pro-wealthy weighting of America's tax system isn't fashion, it's fact. The tax system in America is so Byzantine that the wealthy and corporate take monstrous advantage of it time and time again. This is opposed to the wage-earner who is assaulted by a mandatory system he can't afford to escape through the hiring of a tax accountant. For instance, can YOU (British even so) park your assets offshore while parking your expenses onshore, escaping taxation while also piling deductions under your tax system? Can YOU pay a relative 1% fee to a tax accountant to draft an opinion letter outlining how all that asset movement is legal? Can YOU move compensation from tax-deferred instrument to tax-free account, eventually escaping all taxation on it? Can YOU escape taxation by being so diversely embodied that you simply end up paying yourself?
Enron (an egregious example, certainly) managed to use the tax system so well -- creating almost 900 partnerships for tax-dodging purposes -- that for the last 5 years of its existence, it had no yearly tax liability for 4 of them.
Just because a middle-class person can rack up enormous debts and play a little with his income tax return, doesn't mean that the wealthy and corporate aren't escaping away with billions.
As a Brit, you may find the book dreadfully dull due to its American focus, but go out right now and obtain:
"Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else" by David Cay Johnston
As far as I'm concerned, exposees like Johnston's only illustrate that the American tax system is arranged for the collapse of the American Empire. The complexity, and lack of enforcement in fixing it, are fatal wounds. When tax frauds can happen much, much faster than they can be stopped, then tax frauds will become the usual. When tax dodges can happen for the wealthy equivalent of pocket change, and the very mentality of fraud settles in, then eventually the wealthy will pay no taxes.
P.S. I own no stock and voluntarily participate in no benefits program (a la 401(k)) of any kind
Re:Concerns: government wasting money on open sour (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, as a percentage of the population the middle class is smaller than at any other time in the last century, and getting smaller by the year. So if us greedy bastards in the middle are the ones making out like bandits, how come record numbers of us are dropping out of the middle class and into the ranks of the poor?
Max
Well, we should've seen it coming (Score:5, Funny)
Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
M$ is playing the same card every corporation and goverment has done in history: taking advantage of people's fears of what they don't understand.
Which is nice.
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. The only problem I have with it is that we're being assailed from almost all directions in very specialized markets by "subject matter experts".
Take us on in the major media.. sure we can handle that.. it'll be rebuked and discredited easily.
Take us on in 300 niche markets with paid mouthpieces of elevated status and it's a little harder to defend each one on the turf it's fought on. They're trying to use attrition against us and it's a battle that they shouldn't be fighting.
Linux has no single front.. appears to have unlimited supply (as long as the internet is up), plenty of great talent, and attrition is truly on our side.
Every time you have someone ask you to get rid of their spyware, refer them to mozilla or firefox. Every time you have someone with a problem with the cost of a full blown Office suite, refer them to openoffice or star office. Every time you have someone with a problem with viruses, mention that your PC doesn't get infected and that you use Linux. Every time you hear someone bitching about the price of software, mention that your software is free.
Don't use these as bragging points - these are sales points. You have to be willing to follow through with the sale and support it. I have *NO* problem supporting workstation Linux for friends.. When I set it up, I know they can't fuck it up.
Longhorn & DRM will change some minds. Virii will turn others away. Attrition is on our side. Fuck the think tanks. Bring it on.
-B
You would think (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You would think (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, considering that they also make a sugar-free version, Diet Coke, which didn't stop people from buying their original, I'm thinking it's not Coca-Cola's fault.
You can accuse Microsoft of using scare tactics to enforce its market share, but it's kind of absurd to accuse Coca-Cola of trying to scare people aware from diet soda.
Re:You would think (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's pretty darn responsible of them. But remember, the Coca-Cola people also make Gatorade...a drink I don't think you can associate with poor health.
Like the with the BSA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Like the with the BSA (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll assume you mean piracy.
Could you tell me where MS is losing money to 'pirates?' If I take one of their CDs, copy it, and give it to a friend who has no means of buying a copy, I've not cost MS anything, but I have extended their lock in. Nobody has lost anything, at least in a financial sense. The only ones to directly make $$$ at all out of this is the CD manufacturing company.
If I take a CD of Free software, burn it, and give it to the same friend, MS sees just as much money as before, and the Free Software movement gets just as much. My friend has received software he didn't pay for, and I suspect the BSA won't care.
The only difference this time is that MS doesn't assert it's dominance over my friend. And that's what they're ultimately after. I'm sure they'd rather have many people using knocked off software that they control rather than Free alternatives.
Re:Like the with the BSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me how many people at this LAN party were running Linux instead of a pirate copy of Microsoft Windows.
We'll get off the 'lock in' bullshit when games companies use open, cross-platform standards like OpenGL and SDL in preference to sugar-coated lock-in Microsoft only technologies like Direct3D and DirectX.
Microsoft court the game dev community to, you know... they want you to use their proprietary technologies so gamers have no choice but to use Windows to play games, pirated or not.
the good text (Score:5, Insightful)
They have a word in Washington for the corporate-sponsored outcry, the grassroots movement that isn't: AstroTurf. By far the most comical example of this is to be found at the Freedom to Innovate Network (Fin), a "non-partisan, grassroots network of citizens and businesses who have a stake in the success of Microsoft and the high-tech industry". Fin doesn't try particularly hard to appear independent--its website, after all, is housed on Microsoft's own--but it has as its online centrepiece a lengthy collection of testimonials from activist groups with vaguely alarming names: the Centre for the Moral Defence of Capitalism, Frontiers of Freedom, Defenders of Property Rights. Their comments appear unsolicited and independent: it certainly looks like there is a groundswell of support for the beleaguered computer giant.
In the spirit of fair use, visit the website for the full story. It's interesting but don't take it as a rallying cry. Just remember to wonder why you see a think tank write a paper next time. In fact remember to wonder why the next person you see says something, in general.
Re:Center for the Moral Defense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Center for the Moral Defense (Score:3, Interesting)
It amazes me on so many different... (Score:5, Interesting)
But then, I guess I'm not being a realist. What disappoints me, regardless of history, is that MS is not willing to compete against open source in the marketplace without trying to stack the deck. Have they no confidence in their product? If not, why not? And if not, then why aren't they working to make it better? And if they are, then where are the results?
Re:It amazes me on so many different... (Score:5, Insightful)
A few weeks back I read an article on the register that stated that 2/3 of IT personel do not have the competence that is required by their function.
Everybode who has ever written a resume knows that lying about what skills and experience you have are commonplace. Because the interview is done by a manager with no in-depth knowledge of the field you're working in. How different is that from a softwarecompany telling you that their product is the best out there? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but once you've bought a piece of software, and have spent 3 months (or more) on installing, configuring, testing, are you then willing to take your loss if you're not a 100% satisfied? I've seen project being dragged on for a year or more (!!!) because a vendor still had to resolve a bug.
It isn't about quality, it's about marketing. If you buy MS once, it's only logical you keep buying it. Enforce a decision on the executive level. Take a manager out for a meal, or a game of golf, send him a nice bottle of wine at christmas, and pummel him to death with expensive looking reports about how GNU/Linux/OSS is a baaaad idea. He'll bend over eventually. That way, they don't have to take the pepsi-challenge. The executive won't know the difference anyway.
We, the
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Being attacked by brain damaged think tank (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Being attacked by brain damaged think tank (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, they're pretty predictable.
-Open source == giving away for free what american companies (yes, remember, no software is made outide of the US of A) could have made money on in foreign markets
-copyright bla bla bla
-
By the way, monkey with a bomb, nice image...
Is FUD legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Can a company sponsor a dozen institutions to spread lies without running any risk of prosecution?
Re:Is FUD legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all opinion.
Re:Is FUD legal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Think Tanks (Score:4, Interesting)
My two (euro) cents (Score:4, Interesting)
Oops my bad! they already have... [slashdot.org]
I wonder is somebody is developing special medication for this crowd? It is a growing market...
Re:My two (euro) cents (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahem.
Remember: politicians don't really believe in anything. They just follow the money [salon.com]. And, let's face it: Microsoft has a lot of money to burn. Last time I checked, it was something like 50 billion US dollars in the bank [yahoo.com]. Expect more and more attacks in the future: 20 million dollars is absolutely nothing to Microsoft. The Monopoly (tm) is not going to go out without a fight.
Solution? More democracy. Specifically, more votes and more consumer-oriented information. People all over the world have decided they were fed up with politics and have let big corporations take control of the government. It's time to fight back with your votes.
Easy answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Put simply, free-thinking outside of a think tank is seen as a threat to their own jobs. In their opinion, open source development should be best left to companies that develop software, in the same way that opinions and insight should come from them, and them only.
Their biggest threat here isn't open source software, it's open source thinking.
Don't elevate the status of 'Think Tanks' (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't worry about them as it only gives them credibility.
Re:Don't elevate the status of 'Think Tanks' (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't count on it. I suspect the average /. reader (neglecting the Open Source R0x0rs idiots) is far more widely read about these issues than most of the people who write drivel on behalf of MS, and quite capable of doing their own research.
Presumably Microsoft must convince someone to buy their stuff with tactics like this, or they wouldn't spend so mu
Re:Don't elevate the status of 'Think Tanks' (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be clear about what a "Think Tank" is - an organization like Rand [rand.org], that employs legions of incredibly smart people and produces tomes of actual original thought [rand.org].
These so-called "think tanks" are nothing more than second-tier market researchers with ideas above their station. Like Gartner and Forrester.
OS can threaten small business (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OS can threaten small business (Score:3, Insightful)
That seems unlikely (Score:3, Interesting)
That would be a very serious concern, but for that "viable free as in beer OS solution" bit. Generally speaking, the OSS projects that have succeeded are those that bring in the mass support necessary for OSS's advantages in rapid development and maintenance to shine through: Linux, Mozilla, OpenOffice, Internet tools, CD rippers, etc. In those mas
As the founder of the King Leopold II ... (Score:5, Funny)
And I haven't received almost any funding from Microsoft.
I had a talk with ADTI's Ken Brown (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't going to come as any surprise but he's *not* the brightest bulb on the tree. However he's far from alone in that, more's the pity.
Brown sees MS as a *miracle*, like many he looks at the phenomenal financial success, adds the fact that it's nominally 'technology' sector and draws his conclusions.
Now the place I'm working for (which has posted market performance in the same range as MS) just did a celebration of thier 25th anniversary. The founders of the company are both very well off and pretty damned bright guys. One jokingly referred to his early talks with Wall street where he said "we're in the business of being a profitable philanthropy". The other mentioned that "we're in the business of doing the right thing" (does this sound like Google's founders?).
Shortly after, the chief financial officer got up and (predictably -- he's a fan) compared us to Microsoft. The reason is he's a money guy and all he can see is the money / financial success.
In fact if we acted in our markets the way MS does, our clients would show us the door. As it is they respect our engineering, and even our sales force, which is trained very hard to serve the *clients* needs.
Iff OSS follows that model, all the ADTI's in the world won't matter. The fact is that some oss projects (see the recent article linked on /. about why users are 'wrong' in not likeing the new Nautilus 'spatial' design) *don't* think this way, and more's the pity.
Fortunately, those are the exceptions.
Disinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
In the name of Eris, some of those "think tanks" really are full of shit. For example, here's a nice article [sbsc.org] from the "Small Business Survival Committee" against the recent anti-SUV feelings among several key US people. Their motivation is to be doubted in the first place; why would a think tank that aligns itself with SMALL businesses care about SUV? Non "mom-n-pop" shop/small business will ever produce a SUV. Besides, look at some of their reasoning:
Brilliant. Fucking brilliant. That's an ammount of misinformation that would make many a discordianist proud. I love that logic, how many people died in M1A2 Abrams tanks lately? Probably less then that. So clearly, everyone in the US should drive a M1A2 Abrams MBT. Also, more people die each year by drowning in water then by drowning in hydrochloric acid. Therefore, hydrochloric acid is safer to swim in then water. I'm not even going tom start on their anti-"EC penalty vs MS" article [sbsc.org]. Since when does MS count as a small business, anyways, to attract their concern?
Some more disinfo...... (Score:5, Informative)
"As unlikely as this might seem to the skeptic, the National Security Agency (NSA), that coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to protect U.S. information systems and produce foreign intelligence information, made the folly of developing GPL-licensed code to improve the Linux operating system. After reading the terms of the Linux GPL, the NSA realized they needed to post this enhancement to the Internet in source code form for the world to see. Unbelievably, any person with a PC and an Internet connection can now logon to the NSA?s website and print out the blueprint for NSA s Security Enhanced Linux software."
This is just wrong. NSA had no requirement to distribute the source since they were using it all in house. But since the people who work at these places are on the mission of creating disinformation, they obviously would ignore this:
From http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/info/faq.cfm [nsa.gov]:
"Does NSA favor open source software?
NSA initiatives in enhancing software security cover both proprietary and open source software, and we have successfully used both proprietary and open source models in our research activities. NSA's work to enhance the security of software is motivated by one simple consideration: Use our resources as efficiently as possible to give NSA's customers the best possible security options in the most widely employed products. The objective of the NSA research program is to develop technologic advances that can be shared with the software development community through a variety of transfer mechanisms. NSA does not favor or promote any specific software product or business model. Rather, NSA is promoting enhanced security."
It seems to me that NSA's intentions and reasons can be inferred from that above statement quite easily. But if these think tanks are being used solely for propaganda then I'm not all that surprised.
Re:Disinformation (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft - The "Spoilt Brat" Corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny, because I see it the opposite way. They're on top, tremendously so. They are so dominant that they are legally defined as a monopoly in their chosen field.
A few years ago, when asked about Linux, Gates responded that he didn't even see it as a competitor, that MS didn't spend any significant time thinking about it.
That has changed now, and they at least bother to address it. But when these "think tanks" put out studies saying "don't use open source products for the following reasons", the Open Source crowd spends more effort trying to attack the think tanks themselves than they do trying to rebut the reasoning and legitimately convince people to switch.
To me, the slashdot/OSS crowd here cuts far more of a whining child figure, toiling in relative insignificance (market-share wise) and whining "Why is everyone picking on me?! It's because of that big bully, Microsoft!"
Maybe OSS is better or more reliable than "closed-source", maybe these studies are compromised by the Microsoft funding. But simply trying to dismiss them by painting Microsoft as a whiny child is a pretty weak, and inaccurate, rebuttal.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Chasing the wrong fox (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies going with Open Source really don't give a damn about the license. They really (as always) care about functionality, security, and FLEXIBILITY. The whole GPL-is-a-borg-virus thing never really enters into the equation.
Asian and EU governments are sick of bending over and taking it in the *** from Microsoft, period. Proprietary software vs. open source (again) has nothing to do with it. Linux just so happens to be the best hope at sticking it to them right now.
Lawyers and small businessmen, in the end, are not the decision-makers. The ones who know what they are doing focus on business issues, and leave the IT stuff to their IT guy (CTO for big biz, the sysadmin for small biz). The IT guys are jumping over to OSS, no matter how many FUD white papers from "think tanks" get passed around.
MS is chasing the wrong fox here. The problem (for them) is that it's the only one they know how to chase.
They are right... kinda (Score:3, Insightful)
Due to the very nature of open source, eventually, the best (general) programs will be open source programs. Period.
Its just a matter of time.
Everyone whose looked into "the business" of open source knows this. Revision after revision after revision. You can think of it like evolution. With the code out there, the only constraints are time and people. With enough time, there will be enough people to revise and continue working on the code.
They _will_ lose marketshare when open source gets popular. Firefox being the example of the first "big one." And boy, is it a doozy. Everyone I know who has tried firefox has stuck with it over IE. Including my mom, who now suggests it to other mom-types that are having computer problems. And thats a lot of moms.
Open source could be considered anti-competative, because the domineering open source program will be so good (in theory) that no competitor will be able to enter the market to compete. It could also be considered "communist" (propaganda-sense) because the work of the few massively benifits the many. Did I mention its free? So they cant compete with price? Not very capitalistic, is it?
Open source is pretty altruistic, at least compared to modern business practices. (then again, not urinating on people could be considered altruistic compared to modern business practices.)
but i digress.
Will this hurt their marketshare? You bet. Will this hurt the marketshare of the entire nation? Maybe, eventually.
Not all these articles are that bad (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm an economist and I worry about the sustainability of a model which depends on people doing things for free. Call me onld and stodgy, but that's my concern. That said, it's for the market place to decide: if people prefer to use open source, it will win.
That's hardly some kind of anti-OSS rant. Rather it's a concern that would be shared by my outside "the community".
Maybe, instead of bashing these people for being Micrsoft's attack dogs (The Small Business Survival Council actually made some interesting submissions re the MSFT settlement), we should listen to what they have to say and give them reasoned responses.
Re:Not all these articles are that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, do professional decorators complain that some people are prepared to wallpaper their own houses? By doing it themselves they're stealing money from the decorating industry! No, decorators make money by being quicker and better at the job than an average person could be.
It's the same with software. If a company can't produce a product significantly better than that which the community can make by itself, then it doesn't deserve to make any money.
Shills for the highest bidder (Score:4, Insightful)
We should be happy that Linux and open source in general is now being taken on in a political arena... because the oposition is asking people to pay more money. Like it or not, tax cuts, handouts, cost reductions and the like get votes -- and those fighting open source will find themselves on the wrong side of coin in the world of fiscal politics...
Security is a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
So we'd rather have the non-NSA approved Windows running on our computers? If the NSA believes it is secure enough to keep their sensitive information from being breached, I would think it would be secure enough for my porn.
Just because the NSA partially developed it, it doesn't mean there's NSA secrets and threats to our national security.
I hate dyslexia... (Score:3, Funny)
attack or ? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a poorly framed question: using ``attack`` has overloaded connotations of negativity. Some of these think tanks and organisations are offering constructive criticism (not all of them, I give you) as they evaluation how open source works for their constituency.
For example, it is true that Linux is not entirely free. If you, as an organisation, use Linux, you still have to pay someone (whether your own staff, or external support) to help with problems and support: this costs time and money.
Now, as soon as a I make statement, I expect to attract lot of flame, and suggest that I'm ''attacking'' Linux: but I'm not, I'm just laying the reality out on the table.
Last thing you want as a techie is upper management thinking that Linux is free, because then they'll just ratchet your budget claiming that now that you're on a free OS, it shouldn't cost anything: yet as the techie, suddenly you have 2x as much work because you have to take care of things you could have previously lobbed back onto the vendor. The point is, that in this case, Linux is _low cost_, not _free_. Therefore, it's good that small business associations (and otherwise) raise these points, to make sure people have the right expectations.
Equally, now that we're talking about small business associations: it's true that when you buy PC hardware, it _always_ supports Windows by way of drivers, vendor support, etc; but it doesn't always support Linux/BSD/etc - now whether this is a poor reflection of vendors or whatever doesn't matter, because the commercial reality is that if you're a small business owner, you may find that if you go down the Linux route, that you lock yourself out of some hardware possibilities. And I tell you, small business owners don't care about Linux v Windows: they want a business that works, and they want _low risk_, therefore, as much as Windows may have some costs and suckiness about it, the reality is that it largely works with just about any hardware you can buy off the shelf.
These aren't ``attacks``, these are realities.
Cato vs. CEI (Score:5, Informative)
Two Words for ADTI and the others.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is this even news? (Score:3, Insightful)
The best way I have found to seek the truth is to look for news sources that you think are totaly biased. It is the best way to slay your own bias.
I do have to admit that the idea that the NSA was did not know "dangers" of releasesing their secureity upgrades to Linux very funny.
My favorite line from the bible is "What is truth? Is my truth the same as yours?"
gasp! nonprofit organizations take money! (Score:3, Interesting)
This piece seems to be a classic conspiracy theorist bash that takes a few sparse facts and uses them to paint a complete picture that coincides with the author's ethical/political alignment. It doesn't logically follow that a think tank received a payment from such companies is "in their pocket" or propagandizing as a quid pro quo. Nevertheless, the author uses it as evidence that big, nasty companies are trying to influence your view through thoughtful argumentation, a fact, while true, is morally neutral. Would we as thoughtful people prefer a reasoned argument, though wrong, or plain and simple advertising?
The author certainly doesn't care; anything done by companies he dislikes is automagically "evil" and ignorant of the facts stated above. The whole "funded by big tobacco" slant is ignorant of the fact that tobacco companies and their subservient foundations, like many companies, spread their wealth around to many different sources.
Should we complain that our schools are funded by the sweatshop-using Nike Corp. when they are donating money for new playgrounds in inner city schools, and creating new fields, parks and open spaces there?
I haven't read the articles written against Open Source that this author cites, but it strikes me that attacking a group's financial backing is a a red herring, a disingenuous tactic that plainly ignores the content of the articles. Who cares who funds them if the ideas therein are sound? Should we reject the teaching of evolution as opposed to creationism, simply because some think tanks which promote it are funded by companies we dislike?
Compare Corporate to Political Think Tanks (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, this article is about how big entrenched businesses (Microsoft is the one here) find shills to lobby its cause with the decision makers in business (IT) and government, in order to protect its interests.
Compare that to the neo-con think tanks (Project for New American Century, Rand Corp,
A dangerous alliance.
The difference I see is that in the political scene, it is the tanks that drive the administration, while in the software/IT scene, it is corporations who drive the think tanks. Also, the danger of the political scene is far more reaching across the world and the future of civilization as we know it.
Trust us, we're experts (Score:4, Insightful)
I highly recommend this book.
Exxon is doing the same thing (Score:3, Informative)
More or less... (Score:3, Interesting)
If anything, one should try to expose it as a coordinated smear campaign. Try to argue that what is really is speaking is but one hydra with many heads. It's very hard to argue that hundreds if not thousands of OSS companies are cooperating to do the same.
Kjella
Re:In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
Just reading through some of the 'comments' on OSS. Raymond Keating calls OSS 'the borg'! What the hell? Microsoft is more the borg than OSS. Since when did freedom become a restriction?
Sonia Arrison suggests that OSS is just full of a lot of pimply teenagers is so far from the truth, I just don't get it. Searching for the 'online' comment she mentions in google comes up with nothing, (that may m
Truth as commodity (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"seem" (Score:5, Informative)
Think, man! They don't publish their funding! (Score:3)
The guy even asked several of the organisations about whether they were funded by Microsoft and received no reply. A reply would have put an end to this speculation.
As it is, this may be poor evidence but it's the best we can do. And given how ridiculous some of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Extra moderation options necessary (Score:3, Funny)
"Stupid" is a bit too reactionary. "Ignorant" is certainly accurate, but calls for the reason behind the ignorance.
I think in this case, both "Dupe" and "Conned" would describe the poster well, but fail to describe the actual post itself, which is the prime objective of moderation labels.
You almost need to drop into compound descriptives. Like, "Willfully Ignorant" or even wh