Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States GNU is Not Unix Your Rights Online

Software Libre: DoHS Switches, Commerce Slights 279

Posted by timothy from the left-hand-meet-right-hand dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Some excellent Pigdog investigative journalism: Apparently, The state department is trying to block international support of OSS and Free (Libre) Software. See also this InfoWorld article." Contrast that with this NewsForge report of a switch from Windows 2000 to Linux+Oracle at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. They picked a good week for it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Software Libre: DoHS Switches, Commerce Slights More

Software Libre: DoHS Switches, Commerce Slights

Comments Filter:

  • They will fail (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PD ( 9577 ) <slashdotlinux@pdrap.org> on Monday January 27, 2003 @04:58PM (#5169336) Homepage Journal
    The free world won the cold war because an open society is more efficient than a closed one.

    Free software will win on the same basis. Sure, the US is open compared to most of the countries in the world, but it's not as open as open source.

    • Re:They will fail (Score:4, Funny)

      by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:01PM (#5169356)
      Da Comrade. The Capitalist Swine will fall any day now, overthrown by the will of the people.
      Hey look, a Starbucks opened up down the street.

      • The United States (as originally designed) != capitalism.

        Captilism is a new, post-industrial idea. The thinking is that things are run by the few who have scrambled to the top and can negotiate with each other for power and influence (see Rockefeller on this, who actually disdained the idea of a free market). I therefore don't subscribe to the idea that a government must be either Captilist or Communist. Call me a throwback, but I am kind of partial to the word free.

        • Capitalism is inherently free in that it is based on the concept of free trade. Communism is not free since it assumes that an individual must sacrifice his freedom for the good of society.

          • Re:just a quick note (Score:5, Informative)

            by vonWoland ( 615992 ) <dmitri AT momus DOT net> on Monday January 27, 2003 @08:29PM (#5170709)
            O.K., I know I am wasting my breath but here goes:

            Capitalism: economic system, first described in detail by Karl Marx in Das Kapital in which capital goods, i. e. the means of production such as factories or tractors are owned by those who controll them, i. e. factory owners. This is not a post industrial idea, but actually one born in the heart of the idusrial revolution.

            Communism: econimic system, first proposed by Karl Marx and Freidreich Engles in which the means of production are held in common, i. e., private ownership of capital goods has been abolished. It is fairly complex, but baisically means that you can own your toothbrush, television and house; but you can not own a factory, a mine, an oil well, or even a farm.

            As you can see, neither is a political system. You can have democratic communist countries (in theory, at least), and you can have very oppresive Capitalist ones (Nazi Germany and Facist Italy.)

            So where do we live? Well, most of our means of production are owned by large corporations. Those corporations are not owned by the people who controll them---the shareholders---but by executive officers appointed by large mutual and pention fund managers, and persons with usually less than 5% ownership of the company. Which means, there is not capitalism. It also means that persons who controll corporations are accountable niether to workers, nor to their customers, nor to the general pubic, but to people who can not see beyond the ticker at the NYSE.

            So, the 5000 point bonus question: Is this the system which will result in a free society, or will sprout forth types like Ashcroft and his gang of freedom loving incarcirators?

            • Re:just a quick note (Score:3, Interesting)

              by nathanm ( 12287 )
              Personally, I don't like the labels capitalism or communism. Capitalism because it's usually meant in a pejorative sense nowadays, and communism because it's never truly been tried on a national level.

              I prefer the terms individualism and collectivism instead, most eloquently explained in F. A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom [amazon.com]. The basic gist of the book is that socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism, demonstrated in the Soviet Union and Third Reich Germany.

              Individualism (aka capitalism) allows each person to make their own decisions how they will spend their time, money, and resources. People may own property and benefit from its use. This encourages them to work hard and be productive.

              Collectivism (aka socialism, fascism, or communism) controls prices, trade, and consumption, based on the group's goals and values. Unfortunately, for any sufficiently large group, it's impossible to define these to each member's satisfaction. Whoever makes decisions must ultimately impose on the group what they perceive as its goals and values.

              Here's a good quote from playwright and current Czech President, Vaclav Havel:
              Though my heart may be left of center, I have always known that the only economic system that works is a market economy....This is the only natural economy, the only kind that makes sense, the only one that can lead to prosperity, because it is the only one that reflects the nature of life itself.
              And another on the benefits of ownership from Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury and current Harvard President, Lawrence Summers:
              In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car.
            • Execellent points, except ... the vast majority of economic activity is generated by small businesses, not "large corporations". Almost all of those small businesses are owner-operated. Capitalism *is* the predominant model, at least in the US.
          • Communism is not free since it assumes that an individual must sacrifice his freedom for the good of society.

            And how is that different from capatalism? I realize you're over simplifying communism, but how is the statement 'Capatalism is not free since it assumes that an individual must sacrifice his freedom for the good of society' false? Capatalism requires us all to give up freedoms in the form of agreeing to be ruled by a government so that certain rules (that restrict freedom) can be enforced so that capatalism can work.

            Eh?

            • Capatalism requires us all to give up freedoms in the form of agreeing to be ruled by a government so that certain rules (that restrict freedom) can be enforced so that capatalism can work.

              I'm trying, but I can't think of any freedom that must be abridged if I live in a capitalist economy.

              In civilized countries, there is a judicial system that enforces contracts. Is this the freedom you refer to? But this has nothing to do with capitalism, it is a function of government, under any economic system.

      • Re:They will fail (Score:2, Funny)

        by Eccles ( 932 )
        Da Comrade. The Capitalist Swine will fall any day now, overthrown by the will of the people.

        Basil Exposition: Austin, the Cold War is over!
        Austin Powers: Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh? Eh comrades? Eh?
        Basil Exposition: Austin... we won.
        Austin Powers: Oh, smashing, groovy, yay capitalism!

    • Re:They will fail (Score:5, Insightful)

      by urbazewski ( 554143 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:18PM (#5169488) Homepage Journal
      The cold war cost billions of dollars in real resources. It was a huge tax on the populations of all countries involved, contributed to massive environmental damage, and led to military support, arms and training for numerous guerilla organizations that either inflicted suffering on their own people (Honduras and Guatemala) or that turned out to be ill considered allies (like the Taliban).

      While the behavior of those corporations seeking to protect their monopoly/oligopoly is unlikely to lead to wasted resources on the same scale, tremendous inefficiencies can be caused by, and I would argue, have laready been caused by, the strategic actions taken by the producers of proprietary software. It's not just the final outcome that matters.

    • To take a cue from Orwell, All free things were created equal, but some free things are more equal than others.

    • Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 )
      The free world won the cold war because an open society is more efficient than a closed one.

      I'm not sure how you are tying that to selection of software. Effectively the US outspent the USSR and broke them. At the present rate of growth in China, which is in some ways open, some ways closed, it will be interesting to see how the US stacks up in the years to come. Seems to me the biggest economy wags the tail.

      It is ironic the government embracing pricey closed systems, particularly how they are doing it. NSA and Homeland Security employ open source, apparently because they have full access to code and updates. Less critical applications get the junk. I've had to exchange data with various government departments before and typically they're a bit disorganised, so throwing buggy software at them seems like a way to compound their problems. Great for the next round of budget cuts, "Department X is inefficient and unresponsive to the needs of the people and will be eliminated/restructured/etc.", as sacrificial lamb to show leadership, etc.

      "Their giving us Microsoft Office and and Exchange Server."

      "Yeah, looks like it's time to polish up the old resume."

      • Re:Say what? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jcast ( 461910 )

        Effectively the US outspent the USSR and broke them.

        And exactly where do you think the US got the money to do that?
    • No, one of the reasons the "free world" "won" the cold war because North America has never hosted a modern war. Rebuilding Russia and much of Eurpoe has occupied those peoples - this complete lack of recognition of the Place in History of the CCCP and the hostile acts by the US against it (assaulting the idiology and provoking (participating) in an arms race) needs to be considered when discussing Communism Vs. Capitalism in the second half of 20th century.

      The US presently has an astounding public debt (hey, have a look at what Shrub is doing wrt spending/debt -- hint: it aint gettin' better). This debt is used to compensate for any contraction of the free market, essentially, when times are 'bad' the debt balloons as the Plutocrats see to it that the 'free market succeeds' "see, once again, the market saves" - building debt and calling it success is a little silly.

      What *WILL* happen is that this debt, will collapse onto the US. Both the private (your household) and public (state/federal) debt.

      USofAmerica a very unsustainable economic system -- (i wont even mention the problem with American Consumerism and its effects on the Environment in the discussion (unsustainable/deadly/ridiculous consumerism had to be CREATED in order for the US economy to 'explode' to 'compete' with USSR. The planet has its limits, not everyone is going to be able to consume like USofAmericans, eventually, saner policy will prevail to combat real problems (global warming, mass extinction due to habitat loss, etc)

      Basically, time will tell... Americans never fail to amaze me when they look so narrowly at Reality and declare the US Model of "Society" the best thing ever.. in reality, it has had some circumstantial support, things that will not always exist in order to 'prop it up'.... and when that happens, when your pride has to be swallowed as you realize your precious 'system' has some serious faults, I hope for all-our-sake you arrogant warmongers dont start WWIII in a mass-hysteria jingoist crusade. (think hitler && germany)

    • Re:They will fail (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Angst Badger ( 8636 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @06:42PM (#5170033)
      Sure, the US is open compared to most of the countries in the world, but it's not as open as open source.

      I hear this a lot from Americans. (Don't get your nationalist knickers in a wad; by accident of birth, I'm one of you, too.) The problem is that it is only a half-truth. If by "most of the countries in the world" you mean to include Brunei, Madagascar, and the Sudan, well, sure. But compared to the rest of the industrial democracies, it's not that clear-cut.

      "Freedom" isn't a monolithic measurement, except to nationalist politicians. There are quite a few things I can do in various western European countries that I can't do in the United States. The converse is also true. For example, what Americans refer to as First and Fourth Amendment rights are considerably more open in some countries, while the American Second Amendment is pretty unusual for countries not ruled by hereditary warlords.

      For my tastes, Germany is a much freer place. Someone who likes to own guns or is a Scientologist would probably feel differently. While it would certainly be nice if there were a most free or most open society, the truth is that you must ask "free and open in which ways?"
      • Or someone who doesn't like censorship.. Germany is pretty bad with outright censorship on a number of things.. we've seen many of them on Slashdot. I noticed a LOT of them while I lived over there...

        Everyone has their shortcomings...

    • Re:They will fail (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Obviously, you have never been to any foreign country. For those
      of you who have, and do not post "America is freedom", you
      know that in most of the other countries you live
      the everyday life of chaos -- a far cry from the
      the police-patroled neighbourhoods of United States.
      If not saying the USA is a totalitarian state, far from it,
      but to think that the USA is the bastion of freedom is
      a concept only acceptable to those who have
      never traveled outside their country and think
      they capable to compare and form opinions (mostly.
      based on what they are told by CNN).


      I have lived in many countries, and in each
      country the local inhabitance they all tend to
      think that their country is the most free, the most
      moral, the most civilized, and they can recite lots of
      evidence to prove to each other that this must be so. Enough!

  • Irony (Score:5, Funny)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @04:58PM (#5169340) Journal
    Here's a copy of the article...

    You have attempted to reach a site to which access has been blocked
    • Pigdog is being blocked by Surf Control here.

      Are you using SurfControl?

      I should rephrase that, is Surf Control using you?

      In Soviet Russia, internet filter uses you!
    • In Mozilla, I got a Microsoft advert placed over a large chunk of the Infoworld text:

      "Managing desktop security can be challenging.
      Fortunately you've got help"

      Xix.
      • Microsoft advert placed over a large chunk of the Infoworld text
        That is Microsoft's idea of help.

        Microsoft, for the agile business.
        (to dodge the worms;)

  • Author must have drank too many beers. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gpinzone ( 531794 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:03PM (#5169371) Homepage Journal
    ...delegates from the US Department of State ... demanded the removal of the clause for support of Open Source software. Apparently, the US government is OFFICIALLY AGAINST Free Software, and intends to block international efforts to support its use. A compromise came about where the clause was left in, and the wording was changed from "support" to "encourage", but that's not really the point, here.
    This is considered good investigative journalism?! All the government did was allow MORE flexibility to allow BOTH open and closed source with a preference IN WRITING to open source. What the hell is wrong with that?

    • Re:Author must have drank too many beers. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Fly ( 18255 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:11PM (#5169431) Homepage
      The next paragraph makes even less sense.
      A compromise came about where the clause was left in, and the wording was changed from "support" to "encourage", but that's not really the point, here. Why the hell is the US Government OPPOSED to Free Software? Free Software is AMERICAN software. The idea STARTED here. We are the HOME and MORAL COMPASS POINT for the Free Software movement around the world. We are the fucking LEADERS of the FREE WORLD, dammit!
      According to him, we should "support" free software instead of just "encourage" it. Support is a stronger word that implies setting up programs to develop software in competition with closed software. For example, I will gladly encourage my brother to get a job, etc., but I'd rather not have to support him. You see, when contrasted with "encourage," "support" implies that I will give resources to further something. I don't necessarily think our governments should a priori support one type of software over another.
      • According to him, we should "support" free software instead of just "encourage" it.

        You'll note that the change is regarded as a "compromise". Which means that the State Department probably wasn't shooting for a clause "encouraging" free software, but rather something less.

        But put it this way: do you think that if the Thai government had announced support for Microsoft software, the US government would be pushing for a change? Why shouldn't a foreign government support or buy whatever damned software best suits their needs, and how do US diplomats qualify to make that determination better than market forces?

        Unless, of course, our priority is something other than allowing them to make the best decisions for their organization.

        • Yes, I do think that our government would reject a recommendation supporting Microsoft software. The U.S. government uses many operating systems, and I think that an official stance to support software by any provider would not be deemed appropriate.

          Let me reiterate; I do not believe it is the place of our governments to a priori declare "support" for one source of software over another beside.

    • Re:Author must have drank too many beers. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by njdj ( 458173 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:12PM (#5169437)
      All the government did was allow MORE flexibility

      Read the article. The US government is (fortunately) not in a position to "allow", or prohibit, anything in this context. The final wording adopted was a compromise between the US government, which wanted to block anything positive about open source, and all the other governments, which wanted to support it. The final wording reflects the fact that the US government was outnumbered and did not get its way. The point of the article is that the US representatives tried to block support for open source.
    • Also interesting is that it's now considered "investigate journalism" to read an article someone else wrote in a Thai newspaper.

  • I'd be furious (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sulli ( 195030 )
    if these international gabfests meant one iota, which they don't.

  • This thread's obligitary conspiricy theory (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Neophytus ( 642863 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:05PM (#5169392)
    So they are trying to block free and/or open source software. This shows that the feds are in bed with the capitalists, which shows the capitalists are in cahoots with Microsoft. Dont ask me where the second link came from.

    More seriously, what right does the government have to clamp down on open software that they have no involvement in creating or maintaining. Open source software is (disputably) more secure and reliable, and considering another department has just switched to it... something fishy is going on.

  • fundamental question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dev_sda ( 533180 ) <(nathan) (at) (unit03.net)> on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:05PM (#5169394) Homepage Journal
    Why exactly does any of this really matter? For the most part, the government represents money interests. In the world of software, OSS and Free Software have very little money, provide very little campaign contributes, subsequently aquire little voice as a result.

    Contrast with bigtime software companies. Lots of money. When it comes down to it, the government is going to support and push against OSS and Free Software on the basis that it does nothing for the US's economy if foreign countries attempt to liberate themselves from the MS Licensing death spiral.

    The government will continue to issue statements along these lines, and people who want to use free and OSS software will, and those who don't, won't.

    • Re:fundamental question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by njdj ( 458173 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:25PM (#5169541)
      Why exactly does any of this really matter? For the most part, the government represents money interests.

      Sadly, you're probably right. But don't you think it would be at least worth trying to get the US government to behave like a democracy? Write to Reps and Senators, that sort of thing? While we still can, without risking anything?

      A lot of other countries have slid even further from democracy than the US has (like Malaysia, once a democracy, now well on the way to becoming a police state). For the US to continue sliding down the same slope, all it takes is for most people to sit back and say "What does it really matter?".
    • Contrast with bigtime software companies. Lots of money. When it comes down to it, the government is going to support and push against OSS and Free Software on the basis that it does nothing for the US's economy if foreign countries attempt to liberate themselves from the MS Licensing death spiral.


      Yeah, think of all the income tax the government would miss out on if Microsoft went under. Oh, wait....

    • Re:fundamental question (Score:4, Insightful)

      by starm_ ( 573321 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:51PM (#5169702)
      For the most part, the government represents money interests.

      I tought the goverment represented people interests! Of course in most cases taking care of the economy helps the people but NOT in all cases.
      Free/open software is good for the quality of life of people, and believe it or not it is probably GOOD for the economy. Because it is free it becomes a ressource which can be used by companies to make money. In the end it's the country that uses that resource most effecintly that will get richer.

      Look at the case where a country can use it and one cannot. The companies of the country with all the free software will be able to benefit from it, increase their effeciency, and have a big advantage compared to the country whitout it.

      This does not apply only to companies but also to individuals, because the software is free, not only the companies can afford it but also the individuals. The individuals will get all the benefits of the free software and be able to perform better in their life/jobs which will benefit the society in general. But this may also explain a little why the big corporations opposes it them getting competition not only from other companies but from anybody and everybody.

      All in all, it solves the problem of monopoly being created from the big corporations because the small individual cannot compete even if he has the knoledge to make a better product or service.

      It forces the large corporation to be efficient and creative to be able to be competitive, not make money off of just "being big"

      And in the end it makes the country more efficient and helps the economy.

      Maybe I'm wrong but, you have to have a hiden adgenda to not support free software.

  • From zer InfoWorld article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Big Mark ( 575945 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:09PM (#5169424)
    The U.S. opposition was largely perceived to be support for its domestic software companies and in particular Microsoft
    Now, I ain't no master of international relations, but I don't think it does very well for a nation's image when it appears to be that nation's official policy to prevent the spread of software other countries rely on.

    Remember, kids; there's more to life than the money big companies make.

    And no, I'm not against Microsoft et al making money, but doing it at the expense of impoverished people in the world isn't what I'd call right.

    -Mark

  • Anti-OSS posters... (Score:5, Funny)

    by goatasaur ( 604450 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:11PM (#5169433) Journal
    ...are in the near future. You know it.

    "If you code with Linux you code with Saddam!"

  • thought so... (Score:5, Funny)

    by stinky wizzleteats ( 552063 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:12PM (#5169436) Homepage Journal

    Free Software is AMERICAN software.

    I knew that Torvalds guy was from Pittsburgh.

    • > I knew that Torvalds guy was from Pittsburgh.

      Nope, he's from a place called "Finland", which is located either in the former Soviet Union, or possibly the Middle East, or China. And we all know that nothing good comes from these places.

    • Re:thought so... (Score:3, Funny)

      by cxreg ( 44671 )
      Free Software is AMERICAN software.

      I knew that Torvalds guy was from Pittsburgh.

      Does that mean he's a Penguins [pittsburghpenguins.com] fan? Poor guy.
  • "An experienced sysadmin can just do so much more to lock down a Unix-based operating system, especially Linux," says Beale. "Windows 2000 doesn't offer either the same kind of granularity of configuration or the equivalent ability to inspect pieces of the operating system."

    now is this true?

    i know zero about windows administration, but i always thought it was that unix admins were more security conscious, better trained, or better paid, but that windows itself inherited alot of really cool security features from VMS, which in theory could make the box even more lock downable.

    -- p

    btw, the most productive follow-ups would be objective assesments from those who have administered both unixen and windows.
    • My understanding (and I've not much MS experience) is that the security model for Win is more complex and therefore more difficult to secure. In *nix, everything's a file, and I think that makes it simpler. Plus, the Unix model's been around for 30+ years, and it's an open model.

      I dunno - considering that the only utility you need to customize *nix security is vi, where with Windows you need countless wizards and administrative tools and multiple registry settings for the same items.... well it confuses me (not that that's hard to do)

  • Convicted monopolists need our support (Score:4, Insightful)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@@@email...com> on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:15PM (#5169469)
    The same government that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and turned a monopoly breakup into a mime of a wrist slap fights the good fight to make sure that software that isn't being licensed by the major party contributor is on superior footing against "free" "better" software. Why is anyone acting surprised?

  • Well !!!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chickensdelight ( 639913 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:16PM (#5169474) Journal
    Open source technology - there really is no way to ensure that the third world would get second rate technology using free software, and where will the NSA put all their back door

  • Important change in wording (Score:3, Funny)

    by mpeeters ( 58550 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:20PM (#5169498) Homepage
    Just remember folks, when such a smaal change is considered important, it usually means $$$ is a stake. As in:

    The use of free software is supported : you can get $$$ if you use the stuff.

    The use of free software is encouraged : you can get kudos if you use it.

    That being said, I think the author of the original article smoked a bit too much of all the shit he could get on that beach.

  • Setec Astronomy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by porkface ( 562081 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:22PM (#5169515) Journal
    If the rest of the world's governments use OSS, the US government might have a harder time spying on them.

  • Okay, someone has to be a legalese nerd... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Halo- ( 175936 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:23PM (#5169525)
    So, other than my own connotations for "support" and "encourage" what do they mean to the rest of the world? By this, I mean the people who actually control policy/pursestrings?

    "Encourage" could be syntacially stronger than "support" if "encourge" was used in this community to mean financial support in addition to moral support.

    I strongly doubt this is true, but someone reading has to have seen enough of these things to actually know what the between the lines meaning is.

    Motivating my curiousity was a discussion I had today about some GPL'ed code, and what exactly could be done with it. I realized that past a certain point, all I was comfortable saying was: "Well, to my understanding... blah, but you really outta talk to a lawyer before assuming anything" Words mean different things to different audiences.
  • "But I made a crucial mistake that has fucked up my mental equilibrium"

    If an article starts with this sentence in the very first paragraph, I am not sure how many people are going to take it seriously

    • Re:fucked up my mental equilibrium (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tony ( 765 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @07:13PM (#5170210) Journal
      The apparent bias of an author changes neither the seriousness nor the importance of an article. Often, the most telling evidence is reported in the most biased journals.

      This is the face of new journalism: everyone is a journalist. The most important effect of the internet is also one of the most subtle. You and I are communicating, in a rather disjointed way; moreover, we are communicating in public. This elevates our words beyond mere conversation.

      Since 99% of everything is crap (used to be 90% before the internet), most of our public conversation will amount to nothing but an archive on /. . However, some of this conversation will impact someone, somewhere, probably without either of us ever knowing.

      So, this "report" is still important (in a minor sort of way), even without the sterling stamp of unbiased reporting. Hell, it's nothing more than a blog entry. It serves at least on major purpose: it helps us realize we are not alone, that there are others who feel and think some of the things we feel and think. This alone is worth the time cost of reading it. The fact it is entertaining helps.

      Anyway, I'd rather see blatant bias than the subtle bias most respected news sources employ -- the small censorships, the subjective language disguised as objective, the stern seriousness with which they present the most trivial garbage, the dumbing-down of gut-shot-serious current events.

      Just my $.02, sure, and biased to boot. But intelligent bias is a hell of a lot better than idiotic objectivity.

  • Trade Balance vs local Costs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RichMan ( 8097 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:28PM (#5169565)
    All Microsoft software is an export of the US this brings trade $ to the US and profit, employment and tax dollars to the the US. Manufacturing costs are minimal. The US State Department has a mandate to support exports of American products.
    Internally the US government is mandated to support national development and minimize costs. This is best done through an open source solution system and the development and support of many independent local service companies. See the Peru OSS document.

    Thus we have the two faces of government:
    1) attempting to get other nations to buy overpriced, over hyped expensive american products
    2) attempting internally to minimize costs and local development
    Should one be suprised that other governments are also attempting 2. No. But the best thing to do is to pressure them to do 1 and send those $ to the US.
    • By looking superficially at this issue, you would be right. However, there are issues at stake that are more important than the revenue of a single company, no matter how big.

      This issue is foreign relations. The war mongering is already antagonizing most of the world against the USA, with the UK and Australia possibly being the last official allies - thus anything to antagonize the people in other countries further may cost the US very dearly in the future. Hegemonialism and imperialism are attitudes that do not stand in high regard any more.

    • Re:Trade Balance vs local Costs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cabalamat2 ( 227849 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @06:57PM (#5170117) Homepage Journal

      The US State Department has a mandate to support exports of American products.

      Isn't Red Hat an American product? Or is it the US State Department's policy to favour some US suppliers over others?

    • But the best thing to do is to pressure them to do 1 and send those $ to the US.

      One of the first things you learn in any elementary economics course, or by simply scratching your butt and thinking for a minute, is that Ponzi schemes are all eventually destined to collapse. This applies to Microsoft and the US stock market just as it does to any other enterprise that thinks it can continue to outpace real growth by simply sucking in more customers. And it applies to your view of international trade as well.

      The real economy is a network, not a pyramid. Whether you are a supply sider who believes supply creates it's own demand, or whether you believe the economy is driven from the bottom by consumers, there is nothing in either of these prevailing theories to suggest that maintaining artificially high monopoly pricing for a product capable of being commoditized is good for the economy as a whole.

      Nor is there evidence to suggest that other countries losses are our gains. The goal is not to suck the money from point 'A' to point 'B'. Capital is not some kind of incompressible fluid that should be hoarded like gold. That kind of economy died long ago. The goal is to lift everybody up, simultaneously. Yes, really for goodness truly.

      Nearly everything in this country is too high priced. The only thing that should be high priced in this country is the man that works. Wages must not come down, they must not even stay on their present level; they must go up. And even that is not sufficient of itself -- we must see to it that the increased wages are not taken away from the people by increased prices that do not represent increased values.

      -Henry Ford, New York Times, November 22, 1929

      • I should probably point out that the price of human capital, i.e. labor, must, on a macroeconomic scale, obey the same strictures as any other good. Supply siders like to point out that Henry Ford's advice to Hoover had a less than salutory effect on the Depression era economy...
  • "Support" is probably a term of art, at least in the US, that translates to spending money. Not entirely - candidates are always "supporting" various causes, but when you talk about government policy it usually means a lot more than just saying that you should probably go with the stuff that gives you access to source code over the stuff that doesn't when all other things are equal.

    In other words, this is probably a big uproar over nothing. The only reason to track it is to prevent certain commercial vendors from spinning the same term-of-art to it's own benefit.

  • friggin old news! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) <TOKYO minus city> on Monday January 27, 2003 @05:38PM (#5169631) Journal
    I read about this a week or two ago on LWN and newsforge. Why the hell wasn't this on /. then? This is important stuff!

    As far as I can tell, our government(to all you other Americans) is favoring proprietary software vendors(ie. Microsoft) over OSS/free vendors, including RedHat, IBM, HP, etc. OSS has become integral to a number of U.S. based companies, BIG companies like IBM and HP. OSS/free software is also used internally at companies like WalMart, Burlington Coat Factory, and our oh-so-fucking-precious movie studios.

    What incentive does our government have to favor certain U.S. based companies over others? You have one guess...

  • The original draft called for open source to be "supported" and the final draft says "encouraged." Here is the final compromised sentence: "Development and deployment of open-source software should be encouraged, as appropriate, as should open standards for ICT (information and communications technology) networking." That is not that bad. Encouraging open source can mean supporting open source. I like the supporting better, but all they did was make the wording less definite.

  • Doesn't surprise me at all (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ronfar ( 52216 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @06:02PM (#5169781) Journal
    Our government is currently almost purely mercantilistic [bartleby.com]. That's why if you manufacture things out of steel in the US, the government is out to get you, but if you manufacture steel itself, the government is giving you a helping hand. For an article on what I'm talking about, see this one:

    Eluding tariffs [washingtontimes.com]

    We can see the same thing elsewhere, with copyright, the DMCA, softwood tarrifs(designed to increase logging profits in the US which is faced with Canadian competition) and the like.

    The essence of mercantilism is to reward your cronies with government favors (corporate welfare, monopolies, tax breaks) while harming their competitors, and anyone else who happens to get in their way.

    It shouldn't surprise anyone that Microsoft has secured its position as a beneficiary of "honest graft" [myschoolonline.com]

    I mean, I hope no one thinks it was in the interests of justice that they got a slap on the wrist in the anti-trust case.

  • This is only half the story... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dynamoo ( 527749 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @06:17PM (#5169868) Homepage
    This is only half the story.. the latest announcement [subj.com] from the Department of Homeland Security is basically a tax on web surfers and publishers. Goodbye the free internet :(
  • What the fuck is the US government doing at a conference of Asian governments and NGO's? Make sure that any position paper that reaches the global conference is sanitized ahead of time?
  • The article is making something out of nothing. The US apparently asked to change the word support to encourage in the sentance "Development and deployment of open-source software should be encouraged, as appropriate, as should open standards for ICT (information and communications technology) networking.". How does unsing the term encourage = against open-source software? My guess is the US asked for the switch because support can mean provide monetary support, while encourage is less ambiguous. Basically, people are making something out of nothing here.
  • The way I see it there are basically two ways to look at this:

    1. The U.S. government has been taking huge political contributions from Microsoft and has had to sit down and listen to their lobbyists give these speeches about how Free Software=Communism and by supporting Free Software you're supporting communism. Thus, they are taking some kind of moral stand because as you know the primary mission of our country is to promote democracy and capitalism throughout the world. I'm saying this all half tongue-in-cheek, but it could be possible that they actually bought into some of the OSS=Communism rhetoric.

    2. The more likely probability is that software sold by Microsoft and other closed-source US software companies is billions of dollars in exports from our country. By promoting commercial products that are closed-source in nature our economy gets a boost from all of the international commerce and money coming in from other developing nations. Although this sounds like a shitty way to run a country, this is the way the world works. We have to convince/prod/force other countries to buy our poorly manufactured Microsoft software because it helps our economy...

    Oh well. Guess we should all just drop out of the international financial system all together and go back to bartering for goods... Once you work out all of the delivery and manufacturing headaches bartering is actually a very good economic system.


  • Two things.

    1) We already have an "Office of Homeland Security" Its called the CIA/NSA, and has been around, honing their skills for close to 100 years. Shut up, take your tinfoil hat off, and let them do their job. Do yourself a favor..Take your tinfoil hat off and go back to what you were doing. Panic solves nothing.

    2) The problem this country faces is largely a self-imposed one. 9/11 was a freak accident, and freak accidents *will* *happen*. Terrible things happen all the time, and they scare all of us. Accidents happen, and theres nothing we can do to avoid them. If you believe otherwise, you're not living in the real world.

    Its not a minimzatiion of a tragedy to point out that the WTC site doesn't even amount to so much as a pin-prick on a map of the United States...Its a fact. But yet, we're reacting like it was the entire fucking eastern seaboard that got nailed.. Hell, even if you had an 8.5x11" glossy of just the state of New York, you still couldn't find the WTC. Its not a minimization of a tragedy to point out that the majority of the damage inflicted on this country is psychological, not physical...YES, thousands of people died, and yes, what they did to us is sickening...but no amount of press conferences, phone calls, UN inspectors, meetings, speeches, comittees, foreign diplomats, town hall meetings or other such horseshit is gonna repair that. The only thing that repair's a country's confidence and sense of national identity is war. As unfortunate as that may seem to you, thats how it is. You're more than welcome to point out something besides war that accomplishes the same. If you can come up with something else, let us know. Mankind has been trying to figure out an alternative for about 45,000 years now. Nobody likes war, just the same as nobody likes a tornado in their neighborhood or a tidal wave on their shores, both of which are just as natural and just as necessary.

    It's a hard concept to be comfortable with -- the concept that war is a necessary, unavoidable and critically important part of human nature. Its hard to think about, and unpleasant to consider. But consider this: War is what keeps us in balance as a species, and staves off mass extinction. It does so at the price of contained, localized, and periodic killing. It's a regulating force of nature like any other, a cycle of destruction and renewal that has to take place in order for the big picture to sustain itself.

    Avoiding war is just as pointless as engadging in war on a continual basis. Like everything in nature, too little war is unhealthy. Too much, and its just as bad.

    I'll leave the decision as to whether or not we go to war to the people who have studied all their lives to know how to make the best decision. They dont tell me how to do my job, so, i'm not going to tell them how to do theirs. The government is made up of Joes like you and me anyway.. Not superintelligent uncaring zombies spawned from test tubes.

    Cheers,

  • Countries Support Their Primary Export Industries (Score:3, Insightful)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Monday January 27, 2003 @09:08PM (#5170983) Journal

    Countries Support Their Primary Export Industries. Film at 11. The US isn't being any more persnickety than say... oh... France when it comes to the name "Champagne". I'm sure the Europeans who don't want to cave to MS feel the same way I do that we (the US) haven't caved to the French and allowed them to dictate how we use words. Cheers.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close